Why something rather than nothing?

[vectorcube]

P) Why is there something rather than nothing?

Analysis:

Take the general form of the question as: Why is there A rather than B?
Where A, and B stands for facts, or state of affair.

A general form of the answer would be something like the following:

There exist fact C such that C makes the obtaining of fact A more likely than the obtaining of fact B. So, when comfronted with "why A rather than B?". One need only to find this unique C that would make A more likely than B.

So, if we are to answer P, then we have to find a fact C such that C makes something more likely than nothing. This is absurd, because C is part of something, and thus, there is no fact of the matter that would make something more likely than nothing. What does this mean? It means that there is no underlying reason for why there is something rather than nothing. That the existence of something is a brute fact.


answer to (p): It is simply a brute fact that there is something.

Note: If you are going to reply. Please, explain yourself in easy to understand terms. Please, Do not try to show off by using "big words", or being "vague, and profound". It never works. Imagine yourself writing a actual philosophy paper in order to get a grade. Please, no not write about new age stuff. I neet so many people that thinks that by being obscure, and vague, they are better than everyone. It is not true. Most of what these people say could be said in simpler terms, and they are not all that profound and deep. Be true to yourself, and don` t try to impress anyone.

[vissarion.eu]

Who is P)? Physicists or philosoph? Or both?

[vectorcube]

Who is P)? Physicists or philosoph? Or both?



P stands for a question

[apeiron]

Alternatively, the answer is that there was once a state of everythingness (fact c) which then makes somethingness (fact a) more probable as what we have now than nothingness (fact b).

Then on further examination we realise that everythingness is also a form of nothingness and so really what we would want to talk about is vagueness and crispness.

We can then rephrase the whole question as why is there the dichotomised something that is an asymmetry rather than pure potential, an everythingness that is a nothingness, which is an unbroken symmetry?

I'm sure you will protest that vagueness must also be a something. But check the definition out first.....

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=301514

[vectorcube]

Alternatively, the answer is that there was once a state of everythingness (fact c) which then makes somethingness (fact a) more probable as what we have now than nothingness (fact b).
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=301514

No. I see there is a temporal order in here. If there "was" everything, then "at some point in time", there is something.

Another problem is if there was everything, then it begs the question of why there is not everything "now"( supposing a temporal order).


Then on further examination we realise that everythingness is also a form of nothingness

Not true. If there is everything, then is a world with people. This world would not be "nothingness"( whatever this means).



and so really what we would want to talk about is vagueness and crispness.

No. I don` t know your terms. If we are going to talk, we are going to use stardard technical terms within analytic philosophy.
I don ` t want to make up words that only i can undertstand.


We can then rephrase the whole question as why is there the dichotomised something that is an asymmetry rather than pure potential, an everythingness that is a nothingness, which is an unbroken symmetry?

No.

[apeiron]

No. I see there is a temporal order in here. If there "was" everything, then "at some point in time", there is something.
.

And why would "temporal" order be a problem?

It would be a problem if the argument ran that "time" as it exists crisply broken out in our reality was also crisply broken out in the prior vaguer state. But that is explicity not being claimed.


No. I don` t know your terms. If we are going to talk, we are going to use stardard technical terms within analytic philosophy.
I don ` t want to make up words that only i can undertstand.
No.

You really make me wet myself laughing. If I had to restrict myself to what you know....

I think Bertrand Russell once wrote a famous little diatribe against ontic vagueness. A very standard cite. I don't agree with his take on it of course.

If you want to live within a discourse that simply ponders the paradoxes it creates - just as you are doing throwing out all these threads - then that's your hang-up.

Academic logic of the sort you seem inordinately fond is like a computer that goes blue screen any time it tries to compute any question of actual interest. But if your computer craps out, do you just sit there waiting forever in helpless silence? Or do you go find a better machine?

[apeiron]

Some general references on vagueness....
http://www.btinternet.com/~justin.needle/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/

Some recent papers on ontic vagueness.....
http://www.unicamp.br/~chibeni/publi...cvagueness.pdf
http://www.ifs.csic.es/sorites/Issue_15/chibeni.htm
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~phl...cvagueness.pdf

Russell's 1923 argument against ontic vagueness....
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Russell/vagueness/

[vectorcube]

And why would "temporal" order be a problem?

It would be a problem if the argument ran that "time" as it exists crisply broken out in our reality was also crisply broken out in the prior vaguer state. But that is explicity not being claimed.

Again, I do not know what your "crisply broken priori vaguer state". You ask me why time is important? The reason is that in general, time is thought of as a state of affair. In any case, time is not obvious. There are set of properties associated with time. We can described a state of affair that do not use time.

You really make me wet myself laughing. If I had to restrict myself to what you know....


You can wet yourself somewhere else, because i don` t buy it.

I think Bertrand Russell once wrote a famous little diatribe against ontic vagueness. A very standard cite. I don't agree with his take on it of course.


Ok. give me a reference, because I don` t know what you are talking about.


If you want to live within a discourse that simply ponders the paradoxes it creates - just as you are doing throwing out all these threads - then that's your hang-up.

Analytic philosophy give us results, and answers. I don ` t know what i read when i read your writing. it is more like english literatire. It is like you are trying to define every word yourself, and take pride in being vague, and obscure. That is not funny.

"Academic logic of the sort you seem inordinately fond is like a computer that goes blue screen any time it tries to compute any question of actual interest. But if your computer craps out, do you just sit there waiting forever in helpless silence? Or do you go find a better machine? "

You can use analogy, and metaphors. I am sure it would be great for an english literature course.

[vectorcube]

Some general references on vagueness....
http://www.btinternet.com/~justin.needle/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/

Some recent papers on ontic vagueness.....
http://www.unicamp.br/~chibeni/publi...cvagueness.pdf
http://www.ifs.csic.es/sorites/Issue_15/chibeni.htm
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~phl...cvagueness.pdf

Russell's 1923 argument against ontic vagueness....
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Russell/vagueness/



Look, i know the problems and arguments associated with vagueness. I would know what you are talking about if what you actually say does apply to the context of the discussion. It seems you are stealing some ideas, and words you don` t really know.


Are you a philosopher of some university? I would really want to read some of your papers.

[apeiron]

Again

Russell's 1923 argument against ontic vagueness....
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Russell/vagueness/

[vectorcube]

Again

Russell's 1923 argument against ontic vagueness....
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Russell/vagueness/


Ok, if you want to talk about De re vagueness, then great. If you want to convince me, then you need to give me clear statements, and arguments.

[apeiron]

Look, i know the problems and arguments associated with vagueness. I would know what you are talking about if what you actually say does apply to the context of the discussion.
It seems you are stealing some ideas, and words you don` t really know.

Ahh, it all comes back to you now?

And first I'm inventing ideas and words, now I'm stealing them.

Look, its your choice to present a series of standard logical paradoxes and ask for comment. My argument is that the flaw is in the logical machinery rather than in the world being described. So respond to the argument even if it escalates things to a meta-level where other logic models are permitted to exist as coherent possibilities.

You've already agreed that answers to important questions cannot be delivered by the system you are using.

If you want confirmation that the world of scholarship is bigger than the one you know, you really ought to check this little chart out.....

http://www.iigss.net/gPICT.pdf

[vectorcube]

Ahh, it all comes back to you now?

And first I'm inventing ideas and words, now I'm stealing them.

Look, its your choice to present a series of standard logical paradoxes and ask for comment.
http://www.iigss.net/gPICT.pdf


No, i did not. I gave you analysis, claims, and proves. This is not an open ended question at all.


If you do want to comment, then comment on the analysis itself. if you ask a mathematician, he would think of the prove. If you ask a philosopher, he would think of the argument. Why would you think i would ask for comment about a particular question?
Don` t you think such question is more fitting if you are in high school?

[WaveJumper]

P) Why is there something rather than nothing?




The "something" is an assumption. An assumption that science can never prove, because if it were to prove it, it would have to pass through our minds(we never experience the world directly;all we ever know is the image of the world generated in our awareness). Science and scientists have chosen to adopt the assumption that there is "something" out there, for the benefit of making progress.

There is no way now or in the future that someone will prove with certainty that there is such a thing as "something" or "out there". If 20th century physics is saying anything worthwhile on this topic, it is that "something" and "nothing" are never that far apart as when seen through our human senses.

What you call "something" is merely the manifestation of the interaction of 4 fundamental forces. Why we see the manifestation of 4 forces as something is not a question that science can answer.

But it's in philosophy that everything is put into question, every single assumption that science makes. And as Lee Smolin says in the Trouble with Physics - in the end it might be the philosophers who'd be laughing.

[Pattonias]

Before I introduce some pies to start throwing at each other, maybe we can actually get something out of this thread.

OP, are you saying that in order to prove that A is superior to B we have to have a C, and the C is derived from A and therefore can not prove or disprove the superiority of A?

So the question is:
What D (something outside of A and B) exists that would allow for A to be superior to B?

Could this come down to a 50:50. A equal chance of either having an A or B.

[qraal]

Why should we take the "general form" of the question as you put it? Somethingness vs nothingness seems like an altogether different question than your little analogy.

P) Why is there something rather than nothing?

Analysis:

Take the general form of the question as: Why is there A rather than B?
Where A, and B stands for facts, or state of affair.

A general form of the answer would be something like the following: (snipped)

It means that there is no underlying reason for why there is something rather than nothing. That the existence of something is a brute fact.

answer to (p): It is simply a brute fact that there is something.


You're assuming existence by calling it "brute fact". What does "brute fact" mean when discussing this sort of ontological question.

See no big words either, other than "ontological". Was that too big for you?

[Pattonias]

I imagine that by "no big word" he implied no philosophy-only jargon. He wanted to try to keep the debate in the realm of common language. Instead of using words we might have seen on Plato's thesis paper.

[apeiron]

I imagine that by "no big word" he implied no philosophy-only jargon. He wanted to try to keep the debate in the realm of common language. Instead of using words we might have seen on Plato's thesis paper.

I think what vectorcube actually said was please just discuss modal logic in the vernacular of modal logic. Please don't challenge my framework, just consider this particular working out I have constructed within this framework.

So he wants to limit the debate to the realm of a particular academic discourse. Treat it as a student exercise to be graded, as he said.

This would be fine. Except he then chooses precisely the kind of logical paradoxes which explode the framework. He pushes a tool (which can be useful in certain applications) to the point where it becomes self-contradictory rather than self-consistent.

Which is what justifies escalating matters to a meta-level where humans look at their tools and scratch their heads wondering what a better designed tool might look like. Or rummage through the drawers of academia to borrow someone else's more appropriate instrument.

And any scholars response to big words ought to be curiosity. The more varieties of thought we can explore, the more clear we become about the ways we ourselves are thinking.

[magpies]

Ok if I'm following this right... Well first off on the subject of nothing and something. It is that either one or the other must come first if anything is to come at all. An example of this is the big bang theory... we have the universe and to explain its existance we have a theory that states that the universe started as a micro dot that basicaly blows up and eventualy becomes the universe we know. Now the problem with this is that ever awful question of "why?" or more to the point what came before. The answer we are given is that there was no before or that nothing came before... Yet when you ask was it possible that nothing was before the big bang they all say no. Funny how they just said basicaly that nothing was before the big bang...

Now that begs the question... What was before nothing? This is where the question comes to an end because the only possible answer to that is nothing. So before was nothing and before that was nothing or more to say that this is where the blank starting state of the universe must be. So this begs the question "How?" or more to the point... How will it end? The answer to this seems fairly obvious to me... That it wont end. To come to this conclusion all you need to do is understand how much space is in space. It is not a hard thing to think about and yet it is impossible to think about. If we started traveling at 100 times the speed of light in one straight direction out into space from anywhere we would never hit a wall that made us turn off our course. We could effectivly travel forever at that speed out into space.

So how big is the universe? A: As big as you can dream it be.

What was the first thing to exist? A: The first thing to exist was nothing.

How can we be sure there wasn't something before nothing? A: We really cant know if something did not exist before something else but eventualy the question of what caused what will result in us finding the answer that nothing was before it... This is what every parent knows when they tell thier kid that its just because after a long list of whys.

[qraal]

Ok if I'm following this right... Well first off on the subject of nothing and something. It is that either one or the other must come first if anything is to come at all. An example of this is the big bang theory... we have the universe and to explain its existance we have a theory that states that the universe started as a micro dot that basicaly blows up and eventualy becomes the universe we know. Now the problem with this is that ever awful question of "why?" or more to the point what came before. The answer we are given is that there was no before or that nothing came before... Yet when you ask was it possible that nothing was before the big bang they all say no. Funny how they just said basicaly that nothing was before the big bang...

Now that begs the question... What was before nothing?

"Before" requires time and time implies space. Absence of either can't be described as anything we can imagine.

"Why something or nothing?" can only be asked in a world with time, space and logic... something. Meaningful question asking presupposes the very things that we're trying to 'trace' the origins of, and our usual tools of logic and analysis breakdown when applied to such a self-referential puzzle.

Apeiron's approach - as discussed in the current thread on consciousness (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2413735&postcount=105) - is as meaningful as any other attempt at providing a map to such trackless territory. Equally possible IMHO is Paul Davies' attempts at defining a Universe which self-selects from the primordial plenum/void, following ideas from Stephen Hawking about history having a quantum indefiniteness.

[Pattonias]

Not to burst anyones bubble, but if their actually was a "single particle" of whatever type at the origin of our universe as we know it; wouldn't their have to be a potentially infinite number of these particles existing beyond our universe that are just as capable of generating other universes. Our universe could exist within a sea of universes.

[apeiron]

Not to burst anyones bubble, but if their actually was a "single particle" of whatever type at the origin of our universe as we know it; wouldn't their have to be a potentially infinite number of these particles existing beyond our universe that are just as capable of generating other universes. Our universe could exist within a sea of universes.

Big bang approaches would normally talk of a primal quantum fluctuation rather than a single particle. But yes, if you take that approach, it just pushes first causes further into the past. QM fluctuations have to take place in "something".

The interesting question is how do we get beyond any kind of somethingness.

As initial conditions, the choices seem to be nothing, everything or vagueness. Or to instead argue there is no need for somethingness to have a beginning, no boundary - we can take it as eternal.

I should add that vagueness has the advantage that it combines the essence of the other three common choices. It is both a nothing that is everything, and is eternal in that it is timeless (yet could give rise to time).

[qraal]

Big bang approaches would normally talk of a primal quantum fluctuation rather than a single particle. But yes, if you take that approach, it just pushes first causes further into the past. QM fluctuations have to take place in "something".

The interesting question is how do we get beyond any kind of somethingness.

As initial conditions, the choices seem to be nothing, everything or vagueness. Or to instead argue there is no need for somethingness to have a beginning, no boundary - we can take it as eternal.

I should add that vagueness has the advantage that it combines the essence of the other three common choices. It is both a nothing that is everything, and is eternal in that it is timeless (yet could give rise to time).

Thus the "boundless" or Pleroma. Makes sense. Reminds me of Ain Suf in Kabbalah or Boehme's Ungrund.

[vectorcube]

20th century physics is saying anything worthwhile on this topic, it is that "something" and "nothing" are never that far apart as when seen through our human senses.


Explain this to me.

[vectorcube]

Before I introduce some pies to start throwing at each other, maybe we can actually get something out of this thread.

OP, are you saying that in order to prove that A is superior to B we have to have a C, and the C is derived from A and therefore can not prove or disprove the superiority of A?





No. Again, when ask the question of the form: " Why A rather than B". You can either think of A, B as state of affairs, or facts. Ex:The question of the form: "Why is the sky blue, and not green?". A reasonable answer might be to appeal to some conditions in the atmosphere, and the properties of light( Facts).

[vectorcube]

Why should we take the "general form" of the question as you put it? Somethingness vs nothingness seems like an altogether different question than your little analogy.


Why not? The general form is first explicated by the philosopher Robert Nozick. Why don` t you ask him? Ops, his dead.



You're assuming existence by calling it "brute fact".

No. In my hypothesis, I never called existence brute fact. My hypothsis does assume existence of the world, and is a justified assumption, unless you want to doubt it. Do you?



What does "brute fact" mean when discussing this sort of ontological question.

Brute fact has a technical meaning in philosophy.

X is a brute fact if and only if 1. X is contingent, and 2. It is not entailed by other facts.

2 is not completely precise, because i don` t want to get into all the technical stuff here.
The basic idea is that X is the effect, or result of some other facts. That is to say, There is not facts q, such that q implies the existence of X.

"See no big words either, other than "ontological". Was that too big for you?"
What are you talking about? It is tiny!

[vectorcube]

This would be fine. Except he then chooses precisely the kind of logical paradoxes which explode the framework. He pushes a tool (which can be useful in certain applications) to the point where it becomes self-contradictory rather than self-consistent.

.

Do you have problem reading? Where did i give any logical paradoxes that explode the "framework"? Wat "framework" are you talking about?



Which is what justifies escalating matters to a meta-level where humans look at their tools and scratch their heads wondering what a better designed tool might look like. Or rummage through the drawers of academia to borrow someone else's more appropriate instrument.

I have no idea what problems you are talking about, but i take no shame in using other peoples tools.

And any scholars response to big words ought to be curiosity. The more varieties of thought we can explore, the more clear we become about the ways we ourselves are thinking


No, i am not into "new age" stuff. I think they are vague, pretentious, and completely useless. I think people that seek profundity by being unclear as a form of self-delusion, and sickness.

[vectorcube]

Ok if I'm following this right... Well first off on the subject of nothing and something. It is that either one or the other must come first if anything is to come at all. An example of this is the big bang theory... we have the universe and to explain its existance we have a theory that states that the universe started as a micro dot that basicaly blows up and eventualy becomes the universe we know. Now the problem with this is that ever awful question of "why?" or more to the point what came before. The answer we are given is that there was no before or that nothing came before... Yet when you ask was it possible that nothing was before the big bang they all say no. Funny how they just said basicaly that nothing was before the big bang...

Now that begs the question... What was before nothing? This is where the question comes to an end because the only possible answer to that is nothing. So before was nothing and before that was nothing or more to say that this is where the blank starting state of the universe must be. So this begs the question "How?" or more to the point... How will it end? The answer to this seems fairly obvious to me... That it wont end. To come to this conclusion all you need to do is understand how much space is in space. It is not a hard thing to think about and yet it is impossible to think about. If we started traveling at 100 times the speed of light in one straight direction out into space from anywhere we would never hit a wall that made us turn off our course. We could effectivly travel forever at that speed out into space.

So how big is the universe? A: As big as you can dream it be.

What was the first thing to exist? A: The first thing to exist was nothing.

How can we be sure there wasn't something before nothing? A: We really cant know if something did not exist before something else but eventualy the question of what caused what will result in us finding the answer that nothing was before it... This is what every parent knows when they tell thier kid that its just because after a long list of whys.

Nothing is not a 'thing'. It is simply falses to assume something can come from nothing. To say 'nothing' is simply to say " there is no state of affair".

Things could just be the way things are, because they are that way. They don` t have to be.

[qraal]

No, i am not into "new age" stuff. I think they are vague, pretentious, and completely useless. I think people that seek profundity by being unclear as a form of self-delusion, and sickness.

I agree about the vague, pretentious and largely useless assessment of most New Age drivel, but you go and ask one of the biggest questions in philosophy then expect a simple answer. Was that even reasonable? Are you after a debate or merely a loud proclamation of your apparent belief that every discussion should be easy for you to state and analyse. Why should that be so?

[vectorcube]

"Before" requires time and time implies space. Absence of either can't be described as anything we can imagine.

"Why something or nothing?" can only be asked in a world with time, space and logic... something. Meaningful question asking presupposes the very things that we're trying to 'trace' the origins of, and our usual tools of logic and analysis breakdown when applied to such a self-referential puzzle.

Apeiron's approach - as discussed in the current thread on consciousness (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2413735&postcount=105) - is as meaningful as any other attempt at providing a map to such trackless territory. Equally possible IMHO is Paul Davies' attempts at defining a Universe which self-selects from the primordial plenum/void, following ideas from Stephen Hawking about history having a quantum indefiniteness.



Tell me how time implies space? Why would logic be in the same category as space time?
Are you joking me?

[qraal]

Nothing is not a 'thing'. It is simply falses to assume something can come from nothing. To say 'nothing' is simply to say " there is no state of affair".

Things could just the way things are, because they are that way. They don` t have to be.

Your first sentence I agree, second maybe, third makes no sense.

[qraal]

Tell me how time implies space? Why would logic be in the same category as space time?
Are you joking me?
I'm not sure who's the joker here.

How can space exist or be observable without time and observers? How can distinguishable things exist without logic? Explain. That's the essence of this puzzle and what you've refused to address.

[vectorcube]

As initial conditions, the choices seem to be nothing, everything or vagueness.


Nothing means "There is no state of affair".

What about vagueness?




It is both a nothing that is everything, and is eternal in that it is timeless (yet could give rise to time).

This is crazy. Nothing is everything?..? Honestly, if you want to define the word 'nothing' as some potential. Why don` t you say "there is this potential....."?

[apeiron]

No, i am not into "new age" stuff. I think they are vague, pretentious, and completely useless. I think people that seek profundity by being unclear as a form of self-delusion, and sickness.

Vectorcube, what level of education have you actually reached? What courses have you taken? Have you yet published anything? I mean how qualified are you to pass judgement?

You are getting little respect here as you have shown little respect. Even within any philosophy department you would have to deal with professors who are deconstructionists, theologians, eastern experts. How do they like being called sick and deluded?

[apeiron]

Thus the "boundless" or Pleroma. Makes sense. Reminds me of Ain Suf in Kabbalah or Boehme's Ungrund.

Thanks qraal. Those two references are new to me. I'll have to check them out.

[vectorcube]

Was that even reasonable? Are you after a debate or merely a loud proclamation of your apparent belief that every discussion should be easy for you to state and analyse. Why should that be so?

The question is not really hard, and i had fun trying to analysis it. Most answers to the question tend to have very elogant analysis.

[vectorcube]

who's the joker here.




Who am i talking to?


How can space exist or be observable without time and observers? How can distinguishable things exist without logic? Explain. That's the essence of this puzzle and what you've refused to address.

Are you joking me?
I was asking you why your claim " time implies space" is true? I don` t think i ever comment about the relationship between time, and space.

[vectorcube]

Vectorcube, what level of education have you actually reached? What courses have you taken? Have you yet published anything? I mean how qualified are you to pass judgement?




I took alot of upper & graduate courses in philosophy. I also read alot of philosophy textbooks. I wrote papers for classes, but never publish anything on philosophy.
What about you?


Even within any philosophy department you would have to deal with professors who are deconstructionists, theologians, eastern experts. How do they like being called sick and deluded?

Most are in english departments. Good poetry is only good at eluminating the human soul.

[apeiron]

I took alot of upper & graduate courses in philosophy. I also read alot of philosophy textbooks. I wrote papers for classes, but never publish anything on philosophy.
What about you?
.

Yeah, I've published in philosophy journals. Written four books. Spent 30 years on these issues.

[qraal]

Who am i talking to?

I could make a rude reply, but what do you really want to know? Addressing the person making an argument isn't actually getting to the point is it?

The argument is: why is there something instead of nothing? You seem to be claiming it's an incoherent question to start with, which isn't an incoherent claim itself but your approach seems confrontational and oddly restrictive.

Are you joking me?
I was asking you why your claim " time implies space" is true? I don` t think i ever comment about the relationship between time, and space.

Time implies space at least according to Special & General Relativity. Can't have one without the other. Or do you think that's incorrect? Would you like to explain why?

[apeiron]

P) Why is there something rather than nothing?

Analysis:

There exist fact C (everything) such that C makes the obtaining of fact A (something) more likely than the obtaining of fact B (nothing).

So, when confronted with "why A rather than B?", one need only answer with fact C.

It is of course absurd to suggest that C (everything) is part of A (something), but on the other hand completely obvious that A is necessarily a part of C, and so trumps fact B. There is an underlying reason for why there is something rather than nothing.

We then have to go through the whole argument again because now the question becomes why an everything rather than a nothing.

Which is where we turn to vagueness as a still better choice.

[vectorcube]

Yeah, I've published in philosophy journals. Written four books. Spent 30 years on these issues.


Great, i am going to have to give you a sticker. I will say the samething i said in so many other post. I don` t care about your big your brain. I don` t care for new age, pretentious philosophy which you seem to be all over on. How much of "nothing is everything" is going to be your theme??

[vectorcube]

I could make a rude reply, but what do you really want to know? Addressing the person making an argument isn't actually getting to the point is it?

I do want them to know that i am talking to them.


The argument is: why is there something instead of nothing? You seem to be claiming it's an incoherent question to start with, which isn't an incoherent claim itself but your approach seems confrontational and oddly restrictive.

Explain to me why you think this is so. My analysis is just one way of looking at the question, and to this day, i know two, and three people that gave a very elogant analysis of the question( robert nozick, derek parfit, and some guy i can ` t remember).

[vectorcube]

P) Why is there something rather than nothing?

Analysis:

There exist fact C (everything) such that C makes the obtaining of fact A (something) more likely than the obtaining of fact B (nothing).

So, when confronted with "why A rather than B?", one need only answer with fact C.

It is of course absurd to suggest that C (everything) is part of A (something), but on the other hand completely obvious that A is necessarily a part of C, and so trumps fact B. There is an underlying reason for why there is something rather than nothing.

We then have to go through the whole argument again because now the question becomes why an everything rather than a nothing.

Which is where we turn to vagueness as a still better choice.


You made the distinction between something, and everything. It is a unnecessary distinction because the question of "Why something.....? " deals already directly the the set of all contingent concrete things. If we called this set S. S contains every contingent concrete object. It is already everything.

[apeiron]

If we called this set S. S contains every contingent concrete object. It is already everything.

But not everything is a contingent concrete object in any proper definition. And if it were, then posing the question in terms of something is what would be redundant.

The existence of some thing does not then necessitate the existence of all possible things. But the existence of every possible thing does then also necessitate the existence of some thing.

Perhaps that is why Nozick (Invariances p148) says: "Philosophers of modality count with three number: 0, 1, all."

It is sophistry rather than logic to redefine your terms when you get caught out.

[apeiron]

( robert nozick, derek parfit, and some guy i can ` t remember).

Full references please.

[vectorcube]

Full references please.


Nozick, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Explanations

Parfit,http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil3600/parfit.pdf

[vectorcube]

But not everything is a contingent concrete object in any proper definition. And if it were, then posing the question in terms of something is what would be redundant.



Curious, but what exactly do you think the question "why something..." refer to? It refers to every single concrete contingent thing that exist. What is not included? Ghost? Should i include batman& robin as well ?


The existence of some thing does not then necessitate the existence of all possible things. But the existence of every possible thing does then also necessitate the existence of some thing.


This has nothing to do with what i am saying at all! When i say "everything", i am not at all saying "all possible worlds exist". I am not at committed to the existence of possible worlds, or anything of that sort. The "everything" here refers to all concrete contingent thing.
The description in terms of conrete contingent things are more general. It would apply whether or not possible worlds exist.




Perhaps that is why Nozick (Invariances p148) says: "Philosophers of modality count with three number: 0, 1, all."

It is sophistry rather than logic to redefine your terms when you get caught ou

Not at all, but this is unrelated to the topic. Something personal about youself, so you can believe whatever you like.

[apeiron]

This has nothing to do with what i am saying at all! When i say "everything", i am not at all saying "all possible worlds exist". I am not at committed to the existence of possible worlds, or anything of that sort. The "everything" here refers to all concrete contingent thing.
The description in terms of conrete contingent things are more general. It would apply whether or not possible worlds exist.


Weasel away. You either are talking about mere somethingness or you attempt some clear and honest definition of everythingness. This is not a race where you are allowed to back both horses.

For example, the Parfit cite you supplied.....

"Consider next the All Worlds Hypothesis, on which every
possible local world exists. Unlike the Null Possibility, this
may be how things are. And it may be the next least puzzling
possibility. This hypothesis is not the same as – though it
includes – the Many Worlds Hypothesis....."

So Parfit is rightly attempting to distinguish mere somethings from some true conception of everything. And your concrete contingent things would have to be a subset of even a many worlds view.

Then....

"This special feature need
not be that of being best. Thus, on the All Worlds Hypothesis,
reality is maximal, or as full as it could be. Similarly, if
nothing had ever existed, reality would have been minimal, or
as empty as it could be. If the possibility that obtained were
either maximal, or minimal, that fact, we might claim, would
be most unlikely to be a coincidence. And that might support
the further claim that this possibility’s having this feature
would be why it obtained."

So here Parfitt is treating everything and nothing as limit states of possibility. Then the actual, that which obtains, is taken as gaining support from being aligned with one limit rather than the other. The maximal is serving as fact C to favour A over B.

Then winding up for his conclusion.....

"According to the Brute Fact View, reality merely
happens to be as it is. That, I have argued, may not be true,
since there may be some Selector which explains, or partly
explains, reality’s being as it is. There may also be some
higher Selector which explains there being this Selector. My
suggestion is only that, at the end of any such explanatory
chain, some highest Selector must merely happen to be the one
that rules. That is a different view."

Which is the Peircean approach I've argued but which you clearly don't get.

Parfit continues....

"Suppose, for example, that reality is as full as it could be. On
the Brute Fact View, this fact would have no explanation. On
the Maximalist View, reality would be this way because the
highest law is that what is possible is actual. If reality were as
full as it could be, this Maximalist View would be better than
the Brute Fact View, since it would explain reality’s being this
way. And this view would provide that explanation even if it
merely happened to be true. It makes a difference where the
brute fact comes."

So Parfit, as far as he goes, generally is following my path closely. But he does not continue on down the line to even deeper ideas about the true nature of "everythingness" - the better ontic possibility of vagueness. Nor does he have a story on the selector itself, which I argue is the dichotomy.

But that is by the by. My point here is you don't appear even to understand your own sources. Or maybe you filter out all the dangerous "new age" aspects of what appears in your course work.

[apeiron]

Then what Nozick actually argues in the cite you pick....

"Nozick concludes by linking explanatory self-subsumption to reflexive self-reference, in order to explain why one version of LF holds rather than others that might hold. The apparent insufficiency of its holding in virtue of its holding, which would have been true of any of the others if they had held, marks the fundamental principle as reflexive: A reflexive fundamental principle will hold merely in virtue of holding, it holds true 'from the inside'."

Again, the only path is bootstrapping internalism. A teological approach where the ends explain the means.

Nothingness is considered and then rejected as some version of everythingness + selection must be the case. A case for fact C is at least roughed out in these two philosophers' view.

Nozick actually comes much closer to my arguments in Invariances p163. Treating everythingness as infinite dimensionality. Then extracting the actual world by some kind of averaging or a sum over histories.

Real new age stuff I guess.

[vectorcube]

Weasel away. You either are talking about mere somethingness or you attempt some clear and honest definition of everythingness. This is not a race where you are allowed to back both horses.

Weasel away? How? What do you think the question that begins with "why something...?" mean? It means every single contingent concrete thing. Why is this so difficult to understand?


For example, the Parfit cite you supplied.....

"Consider next the All Worlds Hypothesis, on which every
possible local world exists. Unlike the Null Possibility, this
may be how things are. And it may be the next least puzzling
possibility. This hypothesis is not the same as – though it
includes – the Many Worlds Hypothesis....."

So Parfit is rightly attempting to distinguish mere somethings from some true conception of everything..

"Merely something from some true conception of everything"? What the hell? Does this statement make any sense at all? What is "mere somethings" and "true conception of everything..."?

And your concrete contingent things would have to be a subset of even a many worlds view

Can you say this in a sentence? Are you saying the set of all concrete contingent things are a subset of the set of all possible universes in the many world view? If this is what you are saying then, then the answer is no.


Then....

This special feature need
not be that of being best. Thus, on the All Worlds Hypothesis,
reality is maximal, or as full as it could be. Similarly, if
nothing had ever existed, reality would have been minimal, or
as empty as it could be. If the possibility that obtained were
either maximal, or minimal, that fact, we might claim, would
be most unlikely to be a coincidence. And that might support
the further claim that this possibility’s having this feature
would be why it obtained."

So here Parfitt is treating everything and nothing as limit states of possibility. Then the actual, that which obtains, is taken as gaining support from being aligned with one limit rather than the other. The maximal is serving as fact C to favour A over B

Unlike you, i actually read the whole paper. What is "limit states of possibility" suppose to mean anyway? Parfit never at all say the "alll world hypothesis" is true, nor does he draw from it your conclusion.

"According to the Brute Fact View, reality merely
happens to be as it is. That, I have argued, may not be true,
since there may be some Selector which explains, or partly
explains, reality’s being as it is. There may also be some
higher Selector which explains there being this Selector. My
suggestion is only that, at the end of any such explanatory
chain, some highest Selector must merely happen to be the one
that rules. That is a different view."

Which is the Peircean approach I've argued but which you clearly don't get.

Give me references that shows this is what peirce say, ok?



So Parfit, as far as he goes, generally is following my path closely. But he does not continue on down the line to even deeper ideas about the true nature of "everythingness" - the better ontic possibility of vagueness. Nor does he have a story on the selector itself, which I argue is the dichotomy.

I don ` t believe you, but you can believe whatever you want. I suggest if you want to make this productive. You should list the properties of partfit` s selectors by yourself. Just a thought.



But that is by the by. My point here is you don't appear even to understand your own sources. Or maybe you filter out all the dangerous "new age" aspects of what appears in your course work.

Honestly, i know the source well, and you don` t know anything at all about what you are saying. You draw superficial similars, and think the author support your view. Sadly, i think you believe it.

[vectorcube]

Then what Nozick actually argues in the cite you pick....

"Nozick concludes by linking explanatory self-subsumption to reflexive self-reference, in order to explain why one version of LF holds rather than others that might hold. The apparent insufficiency of its holding in virtue of its holding, which would have been true of any of the others if they had held, marks the fundamental principle as reflexive: A reflexive fundamental principle will hold merely in virtue of holding, it holds true 'from the inside'."

Again, the only path is bootstrapping internalism. A teological approach where the ends explain the means.
.

This is funny. LF stands for limited fecundity. Refexive is a relation between explanations.

What the hell does this have to do with "bootstrapping internalism"( whatever this means)? teological approach? ???


Nothingness is considered and then rejected as some version of everythingness + selection must be the case. A case for fact C is at least roughed out in these two philosophers' view.

Nozick actually comes much closer to my arguments in Invariances p163. Treating everythingness as infinite dimensionality. Then extracting the actual world by some kind of averaging or a sum over histories.

Real new age stuff I guess

Honestly, you are not fooling me. Most of what you say here don` t even make sense.

[apeiron]

Weasel away? How? What do you think the question that begins with "why something...?" mean? It means every single contingent concrete thing. Why is this so difficult to understand?


Supply some reference that actually supports this ludicrous position.

Something simply is not somethingness in the limit. Nor did you specify that you were talking of something as "the set of contingent concrete things". Itself a limit on somethingness, as it would seem you want to exclude possibility, potential, form, process, purpose - other legitimate metaphysical categories.

Whether we choose to denote the idea of everything as a limit state (maximal) or a set, it is still more "things" than just what the limits or set contains.

The fact that everything is being denoted is an extra fact about the state of affairs. It is a fact that we have many things, and then a further fact that this is definitely "everything" - either via limits or set approaches.

Some things must exist in a global context. Everything would have to include even the global context.

This is not a terrifically exciting point, because as I say, everythingness is only a halt on the path to a deeper framing of the "why anything" question.

So the thinking should run, why not nothing (thesis)? Well, we know there is something, so perhaps then everything (anti-thesis)? And we can see naturally that [Everything [Something]].

But then why not the synthesis of Everything~Nothing? Which is the symmetry of vagueness. Anaximander's apeiron.

[vectorcube]

Supply some reference that actually supports this ludicrous position.

reference for what?

Something simply is not somethingness in the limit.

?


Nor did you specify that you were talking of something as "the set of contingent concrete things".

What do you think the original question "why something...?" mean? This something is the set of all contingent concrete things. Do you know what that means? i bet you don`t.


Itself a limit on somethingness, as it would seem you want to exclude possibility, potential, form, process, purpose - other legitimate metaphysical categories


When people ask "why something....?". They are puzzled by the existence of concrete contingent things. I highly doubt that they are thinking about abstract objects, santa claus, intensionality etc.


Whether we choose to denote the idea of everything as a limit state (maximal) or a set, it is still more "things" than just what the limits or set contains.


Sure, you can imagine anything you want that is not concrete objects, but the existence of those other things would not be in question here.

This is not a terrifically exciting point, because as I say, everythingness is only a halt on the path to a deeper framing of the "why anything" question.

?


So the thinking should run, why not nothing (thesis)? Well, we know there is something, so perhaps then everything (anti-thesis)? And we can see naturally that [Everything [Something]].

Realism about possible worlds is not a problem. If they do exist, then they would be part of the set of all contingent concrete objects.

then why not the synthesis of Everything~Nothing? Which is the symmetry of vagueness. Anaximander's apeiron.


The word "Nothing" means the same as "there is no state of affair". If all possible worlds exist, then this means " All state of affair that is logically possible, exist". You see the problem?

[qraal]

Only dogs bark at what they do not understand

---Heraclitus

[apeiron]

When people ask "why something....?". They are puzzled by the existence of concrete contingent things. I highly doubt that they are thinking about abstract objects, santa claus, intensionality etc.


These "people" would not include Parfit and Nozick. Because as you made clear with the references you yourself supplied, abstract objects did concern them.

You see the problem?

[qraal]

Realism about possible worlds is not a problem. If they do exist, then they would be part of the set of all contingent concrete objects.

A possible world is an object? "If they exist" is answered with "they could" which is why they're "possible" not "actual" worlds. Thus we have a non-binary option - if they're not existent and they're not non-existent, then they're 'possible'.

Still don't see how a 'world' can be an 'object' though.

[vectorcube]

Only dogs bark at what they do not understand

---Heraclitus

Don` t beat yourself up for it.

[vectorcube]

These "people" would not include Parfit and Nozick. Because as you made clear with the references you yourself supplied, abstract objects did concern them.

You see the problem?


No! Abstract objects is not in question at all. Their existence is "necessary". In the sense that they would be what they are even if there was no concrete things at all.

[vectorcube]

A possible world is an object? "If they exist" is answered with "they could" which is why they're "possible" not "actual" worlds. Thus we have a non-binary option - if they're not existent and they're not non-existent, then they're 'possible'.

Still don't see how a 'world' can be an 'object' though.


Does it matter in this case? If possible world is real, then they are all concrete worlds. This means each concrete worlds are made/composed of concrete things/objects. Thus, the set S of all concrete objects would include all concrete worlds for each such world are made of concrete objects. Obviously, if S includes all concretes, then it includes all the worlds. QDE

[apeiron]

Still don't see how a 'world' can be an 'object' though.

This is why vectorcube has been so entertaining. He reminds that philosophy departments still crank out people with a religious belief in this scholastic guff. Though vectorcube is a little fundamentalist even for an impressionable student.

Real philosophers like Nozick, Searle, and a few others I have time for, attempt to reason their way to strong conclusions using modal approaches. But there is common sense in the background usually guiding their efforts. With others like Lewis and David Chalmers, they build careers on taking logic to its illogical limits. And they certainly attract a certain kind of follower.

But the interesting question you raise is "what is a world"? Do you have a definition from your own readings?

I would take the systems approach and argue that a world is a system. It is not just a collection of objects (concrete, abstract, possible, necessary, or otherwise). It has to be always both its events and its contexts, its local and its global. So it is not even about "the largest scale". It is about how large and small are the system, the process~structure, about the relations from which everything forms.

The modal logic approach of talking about worlds as an atomistic collection - a collection of isolate objects - is clearly wrong on this view. If there were multiple worlds in any correct sense, it would have to then constitute the local elements in a global "world system". We would have to take the further step of spelling out how these separate worlds relate.

This becomes very clear in a process view. If worlds do not simply exist but must arise by some kind of development, some kind of shaping selection mechanism, then that process would have to be common across all worlds at some level.

Always if there is a figure, so must there be a ground. Even atoms require a void to express their relational properties such as shape, size, position. So if we do want to treat worlds as atomistic objects, we then just shift the discussion of the world context, the "void" which allows these multiple worlds to be distinguished, to a meta level.

[qsa]

existence is about facts. only numbers and relations between them give rise to reality. sit in a dark room and ask yourself what is the only thing that is real and has no choice but to exist and nothing else can.NUMBERS.

[apeiron]

existence is about facts. only numbers and relations between them give rise to reality. sit in a dark room and ask yourself what is the only thing that is real and has no choice but to exist and nothing else can.NUMBERS.

Or is it the NUMBER-LINE?

Then if that, the number-plane (complex number)?

And we can skip trionions because division algebras - arithmetic as we know and love it - breaks down in three dimensions. The concrete objects no longer relate in the abstract space with such neat geometrical resonance.

But then, what about QUARTERNIONS? Now we have 4D numbers and the relations they give rise to (but hey, what gave rise to the 4D realm in which they are embedded).

Then we continue onwards in search of the embedding context in which point-like numbers, simple integers, are only the most local possible seeming events. Do we stop at octonions, at exceptional lie algebras?

These are island of regularity for sure, but the very fact they are tracking some kind of emergent path proves there is also a larger multidimension realm from which they emerge. A space of infinite dimensional numbers if we take a max limit approach, the most natural philosophical presumption.

Then, extrapolating from what we can already observe, it would be arguable that infinite-D numbers would have no arithmetically regular relationships. Division would long have gone out the window. InfiniteD nine-ness would no longer divide by infiniteD three-ness. But perhaps - interesting question - even addition, subtraction and multiplication would no longer be possible relationships.

If so, once you have everything (in the limit), you would also be getting nothing (in the limit). Or more properly, we have arrived at vagueness again.

One of the tactical questions I'm considering is whether to use vagueness to prove the loss of arithmetic at infinity, or whether an argument can be worked the other way round.

But anyway, yes, the case of numbers has been carefully considered here. And it is 21st century mathematics. To update Kronecker in a post-category theory age, we would have to say god made the integers and the "infinite-ion" - the total system of an infinite dimensional algebraic space that could have its internal resonance-based features.

Baez offers a wonderful introduction to the basics of division algebras and their regularities for the intrigued....
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/octonions/

[qraal]

This is why vectorcube has been so entertaining. He reminds that philosophy departments still crank out people with a religious belief in this scholastic guff. Though vectorcube is a little fundamentalist even for an impressionable student.

I'm still not sure why vectorcube is so angry. S/He has a very angry writing style.

But the interesting question you raise is "what is a world"? Do you have a definition from your own readings?

A World has elements, a space, time and rules governing how it develops. A world is kind of like a cellular automaton at its simplest. But I think a world also needs an origin even if its future might be endless.

I would take the systems approach and argue that a world is a system. It is not just a collection of objects (concrete, abstract, possible, necessary, or otherwise). It has to be always both its events and its contexts, its local and its global. So it is not even about "the largest scale". It is about how large and small are the system, the process~structure, about the relations from which everything forms.

Yes. A world evolves, by my definition. States endlessly change, else the world halts/ends. We can't have a billiard ball universe if there's not some means for them to appear in the first place. Thus a flow from "simplest" to more complex

The modal logic approach of talking about worlds as an atomistic collection - a collection of isolate objects - is clearly wrong on this view. If there were multiple worlds in any correct sense, it would have to then constitute the local elements in a global "world system". We would have to take the further step of spelling out how these separate worlds relate.

Precisely. It's a bit like the argument over where the laws of physics came from. If they evolved, then what laws govern their evolution etc. One could chose an infinite regress, but that seems kind of like an endless tower of turtles... silly and pointless.

This becomes very clear in a process view. If worlds do not simply exist but must arise by some kind of development, some kind of shaping selection mechanism, then that process would have to be common across all worlds at some level.

Quite so. I think even our sparring partner would agree.

Always if there is a figure, so must there be a ground. Even atoms require a void to express their relational properties such as shape, size, position. So if we do want to treat worlds as atomistic objects, we then just shift the discussion of the world context, the "void" which allows these multiple worlds to be distinguished, to a meta level.

Regress is the preferred option (escape?) for some. They don't know how to handle space-time or the Void. I have an idea I'm working on which you might like, but need more information (ironically) before I can articulate it fully.

[apeiron]

Precisely. It's a bit like the argument over where the laws of physics came from. If they evolved, then what laws govern their evolution etc. One could chose an infinite regress, but that seems kind of like an endless tower of turtles... silly and pointless.


There would seem to be three general possible views here on how realities could be caused - could have a development.

1) fundamental smallness --------> led eventually to what is.

2) fundamental largeness --------> led eventually to what is.

3) Both these in interaction --------> led eventually to what is.

So either the small grew large (construction). Or the large became limited (constraint). Or both of these things happened synergistically.

The "from smallness" hypothesis is expressed in ideas like atoms, number, substance, information, fluctuations - the maximally specific and local.

The "from largeness" hypothesis is expressed as form, horizons, relations, voids, laws, selection, gods, meanings, purpose - the maximally general or universal.

The "both" hypothesis would seek to make use of both kinds of limit. And show how both emerge together out of something that is really fundamental - a purest possible symmetry.

A fourth approach is to claim reality just is what it is (no development, no causes) and so is eternal and unchanging.

4) what was -----------> is still the same as what is.

The thing to notice is how the search for the fundamental always reduces to the search for some fundamental scale. We exist either as a composition of smallest possible stuff or a subsumption of some meta-scale.

Except to combine both, we then have to find a direction that points somewhere else except to scale. Which taking scale to be about aysmmetry, broken symmetry, means towards foundational symmetry.

Is there any other ontic possibility that could intelligibly be added here?

[Galteeth]

I think this question reflects a fundamental limit of human understanding.

Let's go back to Descartes' famous Cogito.

It is certainly impossible to deny that one thinks. But contained in the structure of the cogito are other fudamental elements of human conscioussness that are intrinsic to experience. "I think therefore I am" or the more basic "It thinks" imply a linear structure to thought. In order to even form this basic undeniable thought there is an implicit linear order. Even without direct causality, the linear order remains. No matter how many times we reduce things to simpler components, there remains a follow up "well why that?" or a "what is before x?" even as we reach the limits of what is knowable.

Apply this to the big bang. There remains the question "why the big bang?" or "what came before?" There have been proposed speculative answers, but these have the same problem. This is a fundamental irresolvable paradox of human thinking. It seems to me the only conclusion one can reach at this present time is that human understanding of the nature of existence, being bound by thoughts requiring a linear structure, is inherently limited.

[vectorcube]

This is why vectorcube has been so entertaining. He reminds that philosophy departments still crank out people with a religious belief in this scholastic guff. Though vectorcube is a little fundamentalist even for an impressionable student.


<< personal insult deleted by Mentors >>


Real philosophers like Nozick, Searle, and a few others I have time for, attempt to reason their way to strong conclusions using modal approaches. But there is common sense in the background usually guiding their efforts. With others like Lewis and David Chalmers, they build careers on taking logic to its illogical limits. And they certainly attract a certain kind of follower.

Another impression. Great!


The modal logic approach of talking about worlds as an atomistic collection - a collection of isolate objects - is clearly wrong on this view. If there were multiple worlds in any correct sense, it would have to then constitute the local elements in a global "world system". We would have to take the further step of spelling out how these separate worlds relate.

Are you sure it is not the global world system that is an element in the set that constitute the local elements? :confused:

[vectorcube]

I'm still not sure why vectorcube is so angry. S/He has a very angry writing style.


I guess the word "ontological" is too big for me.:redface:

[vectorcube]

There would seem to be three general possible views here on how realities could be caused - could have a development.

1) fundamental smallness --------> led eventually to what is.

2) fundamental largeness --------> led eventually to what is.

3) Both these in interaction --------> led eventually to what is.

So either the small grew large (construction). Or the large became limited (constraint). Or both of these things happened synergistically.

The "from smallness" hypothesis is expressed in ideas like atoms, number, substance, information, fluctuations - the maximally specific and local.

The "from largeness" hypothesis is expressed as form, horizons, relations, voids, laws, selection, gods, meanings, purpose - the maximally general or universal.

The "both" hypothesis would seek to make use of both kinds of limit. And show how both emerge together out of something that is really fundamental - a purest possible symmetry.

A fourth approach is to claim reality just is what it is (no development, no causes) and so is eternal and unchanging.

4) what was -----------> is still the same as what is.

The thing to notice is how the search for the fundamental always reduces to the search for some fundamental scale. We exist either as a composition of smallest possible stuff or a subsumption of some meta-scale.

Except to combine both, we then have to find a direction that points somewhere else except to scale. Which taking scale to be about aysmmetry, broken symmetry, means towards foundational symmetry.

Is there any other ontic possibility that could intelligibly be added here?


Unrelated to the topic!

[apeiron]

Are you sure it is not the global world system that is an element in the set that constitute the local elements? :confused:

Yes. I already said that from a systems perspective, the local elements are what would contruct the global forms. And the global forms are what create the local elements by constraint. Then the two sources of action together are "the system".

[apeiron]

Unrelated to the topic!

I thought the topic was "why something?"

This is the way to unpack the question. You were trying to answer it purely in terms of option 1. So I am making clear the full range of options for you.

[apeiron]

"I think therefore I am" or the more basic "It thinks" imply a linear structure to thought. In order to even form this basic undeniable thought there is an implicit linear order. Even without direct causality, the linear order remains. No matter how many times we reduce things to simpler components, there remains a follow up "well why that?" or a "what is before x?" even as we reach the limits of what is knowable.


I agree with this epistemic position. We have no direct access, we only model.

But even here, you can see how you are thinking in terms of some preferred scale when you talk about "an implicit linear order". You are asserting there is some chain of causal actions all of the same scale.

But then you add that this linear path has a direction in scale. It reduces towards "simpler components". So this is adopting (1) fundamental smallness --------> led eventually to what is.

And I would agree that, being a limit, we can only approach fundamental smallness, not reach it. The trajectory would be asymptotic - infinite and yet also curving ever closer to a finite limit.

Now is it so unreasonable to think that the direction you need to take is in fact the opposite one - backwards towards ever greater generality? So instead of simpler components, we head towards simpler principles?

Then if both of these directions of reduction seem eminently reasonable, why not find a way to combine both directions in one larger ontic framework?

[Galteeth]

I agree with this epistemic position. We have no direct access, we only model.

But even here, you can see how you are thinking in terms of some preferred scale when you talk about "an implicit linear order". You are asserting there is some chain of causal actions all of the same scale.

But then you add that this linear path has a direction in scale. It reduces towards "simpler components". So this is adopting (1) fundamental smallness --------> led eventually to what is.

And I would agree that, being a limit, we can only approach fundamental smallness, not reach it. The trajectory would be asymptotic - infinite and yet also curving ever closer to a finite limit.

Now is it so unreasonable to think that the direction you need to take is in fact the opposite one - backwards towards ever greater generality? So instead of simpler components, we head towards simpler principles?

Then if both of these directions of reduction seem eminently reasonable, why not find a way to combine both directions in one larger ontic framework?

Do you mean both in regards to components and principles, or in regards to simplicity and generality?

[vectorcube]

Yes. I already said that from a systems perspective, the local elements are what would contruct the global forms. And the global forms are what create the local elements by constraint. Then the two sources of action together are "the system".
The statement you quoted on me does not even make sense. Thus, the irony.:biggrin:

[vectorcube]

I thought the topic was "why something?"

This is the way to unpack the question. You were trying to answer it purely in terms of option 1. So I am making clear the full range of options for you.

You are off topic, again.

[apeiron]

Do you mean both in regards to components and principles, or in regards to simplicity and generality?

The systems approach would require two axes to map everything here. So it does get complicated.

One axis would be that of developed scale. Worlds as they become. And that is realms where there are local components in interaction with global principles. Or equivalently, we could also use some other familiar dichotomies that mean the same thing. So substance~form, particulars~universals, atom~void, initial conditions~boundary conditions. You can see how all are ways of talking about something that is maximally located and component-like - stuff you can freely add together. Then matched with complementary things which are maximally global and act as general constraints.

Then having divided our description of how things end up, we need a second orthogonal axis to talk about the process or history of development itself. Which is the journey from the vaguely possible to the crisply produced. This could be called other things, like a developmental axis that runs from simplicity to complexity. But there are reasons why this is not very good.

So I was talking about the synchronic view - a slice across a system at a certain late stage of its development. That is when we will find that all things seem strongly divided towards local and global limits - what could be called the dichotomy of components~principles. Or better yet, substance~form. Or best of all, because now we are getting properly mathematical, local~global, a scale distinction.

And you would be right if you are pointing out that in separating off the description of development, I would be re-introducing a linear or time-like aspect of some sort. The path from the vague to the crisp, from potential to developed, would seem to be a one way trip. There would be an arrow of progression.

So yes, there is now a story of how we would step backwards. Except it would be stepping back towards something called vague potential rather than a journey in the usual notion of time.

Each step backwards would not take you towards either the fundamentally small, nor the fundamentally large. Rather, it would become increasingly difficult to distinguish these two possibilities.

[tauon]

@vectorcube...

you first stated the general case as "why A and not B?" where A,B=different states of affairs (as you put it).
but then you mentioned (somewhere in this thread) that nothing is not a state-of-affair (a something) -I am certain we can agree on this- so "why is there something rather than nothing?" is then not a particular instance of "why is there A and not B?"... this is the first error in your argument.

As for the supposed proposition that there is a C, and C leans the odds towards either A or B, you can just as easily ask "why is there a C instead of not being a C?" so your so called "general form" of the answer isn't that much of an answer either, furthermore this C-A,B system works only for "somethings"...something which you also noticed -albeit, from a different perspective- noticed (quote: "This is absurd, because C is part of something"), but the conclusion (evidently) does not follow:

that there is no way a C can support an A over B does not mean that "that there is no underlying reason for why there is something rather than nothing. That the existence of something is a brute fact"- for one, the structure of the argument is inconsistent: nothing is not a B, a state-of-affair. saying "why is the A and not B?" is equivalent to saying "why is there this something and not that something?"... but nothing is not a something, so you're asking the wrong question (or rather, you're looking at the question from an erroneous point of view) and you're embarking on the wrong train...

[vectorcube]

you first stated the general case as "why A and not B?" where A,B=different states of affairs (as you put it).
but then you mentioned (somewhere in this thread) that nothing is not a state-of-affair (a something) -I am certain we can agree on this- so "why is there something rather than nothing?" is then not a particular instance of "why is there A and not B?"... this is the first error in your argument.


Why is it a contradition? If nothing means "there is no state of affair", and i am using it show that the original question is not applicable for the template question ( why A rather, than B?), then there either there is something wrong with the original template, or that there is something wrong with supposing that "nothing" is a state of affair.

Let me be more clear for you:

Suppose for a contradition that:

1. The template "why A rather than B?" is true, and that it applies to all A, B that are state of affairs.

2. The original question applies to form/template 1.

3. "nothing" is a state of affair( from 1& 2).

4. "Nothing" means "there is no state of affair".( definition).

Since, 3& 4 contradict one another, there there much be something wrong with the premises. We can:

a. reject 1.
b. reject 2.
c. reject 1 and 2.

Intuition tell us that we ought to opt for 2, and say the original question is not a valid question.




As for the supposed proposition that there is a C, and C leans the odds towards either A or B, you can just as easily ask "why is there a C instead of not being a C?"

Why is the shy blue instead of pink? Well, there is "the conditions in the atmosphere is just right. The properties of water molecules, and the properties of light. The laws of nature etc".( called this facts).

You can ask "why these facts?" You can ask this, but it would not be the same same form as "why A rather than B?". It would be "Why the facts C obtain obtain in the world, and why C has the properties that it does?".



that there is no way a C can support an A over B does not mean that "that there is no underlying reason for why there is something rather than nothing. That the existence of something is a brute fact"- for one, the structure of the argument is inconsistent: nothing is not a B, a state-of-affair. saying "why is the A and not B?" is equivalent to saying "why is there this something and not that something?"... but nothing is not a something, so you're asking the wrong question (or rather, you're looking at the question from an erroneous point of view) and you're embarking on the wrong train...

No. To suppose that the original question applies to the template leads to the realization that nothing is both a state of affair, and not does not necessary imply that the reasoning fails if the intented purpose is only to show that assumption is false, and that the original question does not fit into the stardard template.

[qraal]

Why is it a contradition? If nothing means "there is no state of affair", and i am using it show that the original question is not applicable for the template question ( why A rather, than B?), then there either there is something wrong with the original template, or that there is something wrong with supposing that "nothing" is a state of affair.

If you can explain all this so eloquently and in good humour, why can't you get what apeiron is saying? You seem to be arguing past each other, yet what apeiron says isn't that weird, strange or opaque. It makes perfect sense when discussing existence as a whole, especially when determining what makes for "a whole" and the total system. The real problem with your little syllogism is you seem to take "something" to mean "any old thing" but in fact - in this type of question - it means "every damned thing" including the possible and the laws of logic themselves.

[tauon]

Why is it a contradition?

because "nothing" is not a "state of affair"... look:

If nothing means "there is no state of affair",

then

(1)"there is no state of affair"
(2)nothing is a state of affair

(2) implies not(1) (since there is at least 1 state of affair: "nothing", hence if there is nothing there is not-nothing=at least 1 something) q.e.d.

to make it more clear to you (even though, the contradiction is actually quite obvious), let's replace "state of affair" with "eagle" (you know, the bird :P):

(1)"there are no eagles"=nothing
(2)nothing is an eagle

so if there are no eagles than there is at least one eagle etc etc etc.
so yeah, there is indeed "something wrong with supposing that nothing is a state of affair"

You can ask this, but it would not be the same same form as "why A rather than B?".

no it would be EXACTLY like asking "why A rather than B?", since it's like asking "why C and not C' ?"

the original question does not fit into the stardard template.

well, yeah: that's what I said. thank you for repeating that for me. -_-

[vectorcube]

because "nothing" is not a "state of affair"... look:

:bugeye:

(1)"there is no state of affair"
(2)nothing is a state of affair

nothing means 1, and 1&2 are contradictory.


(1)"there is no state of affair"
(2)nothing is a state of affair

(2) implies not(1) (since there is at least 1 state of affair: "nothing", hence if there is nothing there is not-nothing=at least 1 something) q.e.d.

No! the word "nothing" means 1, and that is what i am saying all along, 2 implies that there is at least one state of affair, namely nothing. That is the whole point in the argument when i use it to deny the assumption that the original question fits with the template. 2 is false, 1 and 2 contradict, and the original question is invalid.

no it would be EXACTLY like asking "why A rather than B?", since it's like asking "why C and not C' ?"



Then there is a fact D that makes C rather then C'. So your point being...?



well, yeah: that's what I said. thank you for repeating that for me. -_-

What you said was wrong, and obviously, you have zero to no experience with proves.

A true, but unjustified belief

[vectorcube]

If you can explain all this so eloquently and in good humour, why can't you get what apeiron is saying? You seem to be arguing past each other, yet what apeiron says isn't that weird, strange or opaque. It makes perfect sense when discussing existence as a whole, especially when determining what makes for "a whole" and the total system. The real problem with your little syllogism is you seem to take "something" to mean "any old thing" but in fact - in this type of question - it means "every damned thing" including the possible and the laws of logic themselves.

How many times do i have to say this? Everything here means " Every contingent concrete objects".



You seem to be arguing past each other, yet what apeiron says isn't that weird, strange or opaque.

Don` t worry. You are not too bad yourself.

[apeiron]

:bugeye:

(1)"there is no state of affair"
(2)nothing is a state of affair

nothing means 1, and 1&2 are contradictory.


Which was the point. Modal approaches just don't give us the tools to do the job. It is a non-reflexive logic and therefore cannot be used to say anything true about reflexive questions.

But it is a little troll-like that you first persisted in defending the conclusion, we must accept "why something?" as brute fact, rather than just accept the logic itself has blue screened.

What was your reason for not coming clean sooner?



How many times do i have to say this? Everything here means " Every contingent concrete objects".


Again, you did not state this at the outset and only added this constraint belatedly. It is not as if we should take this to be part of the modal approach - something that does not even need stating explicitly.

Your own references for Nozick and Parfit demonstrated that they had to distinguish the contingent from the necessary, the concrete from the abstract.

[vectorcube]

Which was the point. Modal approaches just don't give us the tools to do the job. It is a non-reflexive logic and therefore cannot be used to say anything true about reflexive questions.




There is no modal logic here. Maybe a bit metaphysics about propositions and facts.



But it is a little troll-like that you first persisted in defending the conclusion, we must accept "why something?" as brute fact, rather than just accept the logic itself has blue screened.

I don ` t see how logic is wrong here. I am using logic to show certain conclusions right? Namely, the orignal question is invalid, or do you miss that entirely in your impression?


"What was your reason for not coming clean sooner?"


Coming clean? I am either clean, and not clearn, but not both. The logic is right. The question is wrong.

[tauon]

nothing means 1, and 1&2 are contradictory.

YES, that's what I said!

No! the word "nothing" means 1,

I never said otherwise thank you very much. All along I argued assuming 1 as a [quasi]definition of "nothing" (all at your little request in the OP).

and that is what i am saying all along, 2 implies that there is at least one state of affair, namely nothing. That is the whole point in the argument when i use it to deny the assumption that the original question fits with the template.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING!!!
what are you even arguing against here?

2 is false, 1 and 2 contradict, and the original question is invalid.

nope, the assumption 2 is false because 1 and 2 contradict. the original question P is independent of this.
furthermore, since 2 is false than you cannot push P into a "why A and not B?" A,B=state of affair system!

Then there is a fact D that makes C rather then C'. So your point being...?

why is there D rather than D' ?
INFINITE REGRESS!

What you said was wrong, and obviously, you have zero to no experience with proves.

A true, but unjustified believe.

what I said was trivially correct. the manner of your mistakes is incredibly naive. sometimes I wonder if you're even serious about the discussion...

[vectorcube]

Again, you did not state this at the outset and only added this constraint belatedly. It is not as if we should take this to be part of the modal approach - something that does not even need stating explicitly.


Your own references for Nozick and Parfit demonstrated that they had to distinguish the contingent from the necessary, the concrete from the abstract
.



Well, perhaps to the less than informed, but the original questions obvious talks about contingent concrete objects.

[vectorcube]

YES, that's what I said

You want a star?



I never said otherwise thank you very much. All along I argued assuming 1 as a [quasi]definition of "nothing" (all at your little request in the OP

Ok.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING!!!
what are you even arguing against here?


because you seem to not get the argument from the original post?



nope, the assumption 2 is false because 1 and 2 contradict. the original question P is independent of this.

indep?

furthermore, since 2 is false than you cannot push P into a "why A and not B?" A,B=state of affair system!
Which is why i have to repeat myself( so please don` t ask me why, again).

I first show that the assumption of P, and "P applies to template" implies a contradiction. I then turn back, and ask what was wrong with the premises, and i reject "P applies to template" is false. Which is my argument.

why is there D rather than D' ?
INFINITE REGRESS!

So? Perhaps you need to be reminded that i am not talking about the problem of regress( which i don` t really see as a problem). I ONLY point out that nothing is not a state of affair, here. Your only problem is that you don` t understand.

"The manner of your mistakes is incredibly naive. "

Suriously?

Where did i make a mistake? You misinterpret the original post, and i am being a good enough person to help you out with the details.

[tauon]

@vectorcube...

I don't get your argument?
isn't your argument that existence is merely a brute fact.

to quote you:

"It means that there is no underlying reason for why there is something rather than nothing. That the existence of something is a brute fact."

what exactly about your argument do I fail to understand? please enlighten me... -_-

[apeiron]

When people ask "why something....?". They are puzzled by the existence of concrete contingent things. I highly doubt that they are thinking about abstract objects, santa claus, intensionality etc.


Again, who are these people?

What puzzles philosophers is thingness itself. Not particular things, or even particular worlds, but any thing in any sense. And that includes what you would call abstract objects. And I would call global constraints.

As you say, we know there is thingness so already we are reasonably disposed to the idea that nothingness - a true absence of thingness in all its senses - probably comes with a good reason why it is the case. We already have accepted there was a possible fork in the road between thingness and nothingness.

We also have a better working definition of no-thingness if it is the absence of both objects and categories, contents and containers. It is not just - in your parlance - an absence of concrete objects, but also abstract objects as well.

So we know that no-thingness in the full reflexive sense is not possible (that being the inverse of Descartes cogito).

So the natural next question to pose is to go in the other direction. Why not thingness rather than everythingness?

Of course, we could just chose to accept thingness and give up on questions about how it arose, how it could have developed. We seemed worried about it a moment ago when asking why something rather than nothing, but having disposed of that quickly because true nothingness is self-contradictory based on the dichotomisation that we know exists with thingness (the local~global division of the concrete~abstract as you call it) but now for some whimisical reason we have decided to just walk away from the question.

Or we can persevere and look at the inadequacies of everythingness as an alternative (as Parfit argues, it is "too much" and must get whittled down by a teleological selection mechanism).

Then once we get into issues of selection and self-organisation, we are into the territory of symmetry and symmetry-breaking. Which in metaphysics has its historic links with Anaximander's apeiron and Peirce's vagueness, to name two ways of talking about this kind of symmetry-breaking axis of development.

[apeiron]

to quote you:

"It means that there is no underlying reason for why there is something rather than nothing. That the existence of something is a brute fact."

what exactly about your argument do I fail to understand? please enlighten me... -_-

Sounds like he is trying to say he knew this was the wrong answer all along and what he was in fact demonstrating was that this template argument cannot work on self-reflexive questions.

Which is obvious to everyone else, as all the responses show.

The interesting question then becomes, well what does work? Vectorcube is not going to help us here it seems.

[vectorcube]

@vectorcube...

I don't get your argument?
isn't your argument that existence is merely a brute fact.

to quote you:

"It means that there is no underlying reason for why there is something rather than nothing. That the existence of something is a brute fact."

what exactly about your argument do I fail to understand? please enlighten me... -_-

It means that the original question do not following the usual template. The problem is with the inclusion of nothing as a state of affair.

The meaning is that nothing is not a state of affair, and the question should really be "Why something?", or "Why something exist?". Since there is no alternative of why there is something, because " nothing" is not a state of affair, thus not a possibility. The existence of something would be a brute fact.

[vectorcube]

Again, who are these people?



The majority of people( non-philosophers and philosophers) that ask the question.

[apeiron]

The majority of people( non-philosophers and philosophers) that ask the question.

But again, not the very philosophers you cited, so presumably not the academic community you had in mind whose views on these things could be taken as read.

Nor apparently the majority of those responding here on this forum. So that is a weak reply.

[tauon]

It means that the original question do not following the usual template. The problem is with the inclusion of nothing as a state of affair. The meaning is that nothing is not a state of affair,

and with this part, as I so many times now said: I AGREE. however-

and the question should really be "Why something?", or "Why something exist?". Since there is no alternative of why there is something, because " nothing" is not a state of affair, thus not a possibility. The existence of something would be a brute fact.

that is incorrect! whether existence is a brute fact or not, does not follow from this reasoning.

the question does not fit only in the "why A and not B?" where A and B were both the same type-states of affairs.
however, the question is perfectly valid in a context of "why Q and not P?" where Q and P are different types (not both states of affair) or "why Q and not not-Q ?".

[magpies]

What are is the probility that a universe doesnt exist aka nothingness... Would stay as nothingness from now till tomorrow and every tomorrows after that. Id say the chances of a universe that started as nothing and remained nothing would be zero.

The only problem with this idea is the religious dogma of science that says energy cant be created or destroyed. If you do away with that rule then a universe can come from nothing and at that point the question would be... Why/How does energy get made or unmade? Because I have a spiritual side I would answer that with this word... Choice.

[qraal]

Well, perhaps to the less than informed, but the original questions obvious talks about contingent concrete objects.

*head-desk*

[vectorcube]

But again, not the very philosophers you cited, so presumably not the academic community you had in mind whose views on these things could be taken as read.


Honestly, you don` t know what you saying here. Most philosophers that asked it had in mind contingent concrete objects. They include Parfit, and nozick. Are you honestly comparing yourself to me? You even misquote them! Seriously, all of you quotes from parfit, nozick are misinterpreted, and outright wrong.

[vectorcube]

however, the question is perfectly valid in a context of "why Q and not P?" where Q and P are different types (not both states of affair) or "why Q and not not-Q ?".

For the 100 times. NO!

nothing is not a state of affair, and so the scheme does not apply. What you have here does not make any sense.

[vectorcube]

*head-desk*


Is it too "ontological"?

[apeiron]

Honestly, you don` t know what you saying here. Most philosophers that asked it had in mind contingent concrete objects. They include Parfit, and nozick. Are you honestly comparing yourself to me?

Yes but you gave two references where both these philosophers explicitly included what you dub abstract objects as part of the general question of what exists. They also seem as concerned about necessary objects as contingent ones. So you're just being weird about this.

Just happened to be reading something that made me smile....

One famous quote attributed to Buddha states: “Unity can only be
manifested by the Binary. Unity itself and the idea of Unity are already two.”

To talk about worlds, we have to talk about both the contents and the container. You insist that only contents is a natural thing to be concerned with. But you can never escape the equally necessary idea of a container no matter how you wriggle.

A state of affairs is - quite plainly - both a state and the affairs we deem to constitute it. Even your own terminology has to smuggle in the notion of context to justify the notion of events.

Furthermore, on nothingness, I think we all agree that it cannot actually exist. Even if there is no affairs, there is still the state level description.

But is this then merely a trick of the modelling - our habit of talking in state-based, set theoretic, terms? Perhaps in reality we can define the null set in such a way there is both no contents and no bounding brackets (the denoter of global state)?

That's where the questioning here actually becomes interesting.

Then further, if we take a limits approach to these kinds of questions rather than a set theoretic one, could we treat [null] as being almost no container, almost no contents - so an asymptotic approach that is bounded by actual, but non-existent, nothingness?


So issue 1) Can we treat the "state of affairs" as a two part story? How does this actually divide our concept of nothingness (as into an absence of affairs vs an absence of state)?

And issue 2) If set theoretic approaches are not helpful, could we do better with a limits approach? What would it mean to be infinitesimally close to nothingness? For a start it would turn the question from one about existence or structure into one about development or process.

[vectorcube]

Yes but you gave two references where both these philosophers explicitly included what you dub abstract objects as part of the general question of what exists.

Where? reference? quotes?

You are amazing....

One more time. All the philosophers that ask the original question have in mind contingent concrete objects. It is the contingent objects that is most puzzling

The existence of abstract objects is not in question, because they exist necessaily even if there is nothing.


Many real philosophers agree here:http://www.closertotruth.com/topic/Why-is-There-Something-Rather-than-Nothing-/118

[Galteeth]

Yes but you gave two references where both these philosophers explicitly included what you dub abstract objects as part of the general question of what exists. They also seem as concerned about necessary objects as contingent ones. So you're just being weird about this.

Just happened to be reading something that made me smile....

One famous quote attributed to Buddha states: “Unity can only be
manifested by the Binary. Unity itself and the idea of Unity are already two.”

To talk about worlds, we have to talk about both the contents and the container. You insist that only contents is a natural thing to be concerned with. But you can never escape the equally necessary idea of a container no matter how you wriggle.

A state of affairs is - quite plainly - both a state and the affairs we deem to constitute it. Even your own terminology has to smuggle in the notion of context to justify the notion of events.

Furthermore, on nothingness, I think we all agree that it cannot actually exist. Even if there is no affairs, there is still the state level description.

But is this then merely a trick of the modelling - our habit of talking in state-based, set theoretic, terms? Perhaps in reality we can define the null set in such a way there is both no contents and no bounding brackets (the denoter of global state)?

That's where the questioning here actually becomes interesting.

Then further, if we take a limits approach to these kinds of questions rather than a set theoretic one, could we treat [null] as being almost no container, almost no contents - so an asymptotic approach that is bounded by actual, but non-existent, nothingness?


So issue 1) Can we treat the "state of affairs" as a two part story? How does this actually divide our concept of nothingness (as into an absence of affairs vs an absence of state)?

And issue 2) If set theoretic approaches are not helpful, could we do better with a limits approach? What would it mean to be infinitesimally close to nothingness? For a start it would turn the question from one about existence or structure into one about development or process.

The existence of a null set, implies that which is not a null set. Zero implies 1, which implies all the properties of the rest of the numbers...

[apeiron]

A state of affairs is - quite plainly - both a state and the affairs we deem to constitute it. Even your own terminology has to smuggle in the notion of context to justify the notion of events.


Vectorcube, please explain how your term "state of affairs" does not imply a dichotomy as stated.

[vectorcube]

Vectorcube, please explain how your term "state of affairs" does not imply a dichotomy as stated.


"state of affairs" is another way of saying "facts". They have technical meaning.

[apeiron]

"state of affairs" is another way of saying "facts". They have technical meaning.

And what are facts? Do they exist as facts qua a circumstance? Is there a context in which some facts are factual, others can be judged as counter-factual? Is there no conceal dichotomy in facts just as there is in any other philosophical term of any utility?

[magpies]

Yes facts are just opinions strongly held ones at that.

I do believe this question of why something rather then nothing is a good one but... I don't think anyone can really answer it. Its sorta like the what came before the thing that came before question. It might be better to instead ask what do we do now that we know about its complexity type of thing. In that case I would say learning how to better control ourselfs would be a good start. We would have to make some assumptions about what we are first and ignore the fact that we dont know the truth of what we are fully.

[Galteeth]

Yes facts are just opinions strongly held ones at that.

I do believe this question of why something rather then nothing is a good one but... I don't think anyone can really answer it. Its sorta like the what came before the thing that came before question. It might be better to instead ask what do we do now that we know about its complexity type of thing. In that case I would say learning how to better control ourselfs would be a good start. We would have to make some assumptions about what we are first and ignore the fact that we dont know the truth of what we are fully.



I got the "properties of zero thing" from David Pearce's website. The site is primarily about the philosophical impliations of genetic engineering (taken to the extreme of consciousness engneering) but he does have a section on this question, not giving an answer but analyzing the parameters of the question, and various ways in which the universe is related to nothingness by means of the concept of zero. This was written sometime ago, so a few things are a bit out of date (when taking about black holes, he doesn't mention the holographic principle at all)
http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilfil.htm This is page one, there are nine pages.

[Galteeth]

Here is another philosophical paper, linked to at the end of the previous one, that discusses the human dimensions of the question in regards to various suppositions of its validity.

http://www.hedweb.com/witherall/existence.htm

[vectorcube]

And what are facts? Do they exist as facts qua a circumstance?

If you taken any courses that introduces your to modern philosophy, they most certainly teachs you what facts is. I have also mention it many times in PF.

[apeiron]

If you taken any courses that introduces your to modern philosophy, they most certainly teachs you what facts is. I have also mention it many times in PF.

I was asking for a justification of your position. I realise that is difficult.

[vectorcube]

I was asking for a justification of your position. I realise that is difficult.

You ask me what "facts" mean, and i am telling you i am using it in the conventional way by philosophers. It makes no sense to ask for a justification of a definition. If you have problems with it, then your beef is not with me. You beef is with modern analytic philosophy.

[apeiron]

It makes no sense to ask for a justification of a definition.

????

If you don't like the conclusion don't you always challenge the premises?

Certainly I agree that the failure to model "facts" correctly - as events in contexts - is a central problem in modern, largely anglo-saxon, analytic thinking.

You are defending this approach so it seems fair you should defend one of its essential elements.

[vectorcube]

????

If you don't like the conclusion don't you always challenge the premises?



Like i said defore, i don ` t have a justification for the definition of the word "fact". It is given in any philosophical dictionary.

You are defending this approach so it seems fair you should defend one of its essential elements.

The word "facts" is defined by philosophers in a certain way, and i used it according to the standard convention. I am not at all committed to a particular view just because i use the word, and i don` t see why you would think so.

[tauon]

For the 100 times. NO!

nothing is not a state of affair, and so the scheme does not apply. What you have here does not make any sense.

for the 1000th time: of course "nothing" is NOT a "state of affair"!

but as I said, the question fits in the pattern "why A and not Q?" where A is the fact of being a state of affair (existence, being: whatever you may label it) and Q is not a state of affair... -_-

it's like asking: why are the states of affair (gawd, this line is beginning to sound incredibly annoying) instead of not being any states of affair. the question "works". you just need to ask it right. whether it is answerable or not: that's a whole different matter altogether.

but of course, the pattern is merely symbolical. since we are somethings, we need something... so we use a something to inquire about not-something... like the symbol ∅ for the empty set etc. jeez what's so hard to get that? why are you so stuck in formalism? you confuse the term denoting the thing (or the lack of any thing) for the thing itself (or lack of).

[tauon]

Like i said defore, i don ` t have a justification for the definition of the word "fact". It is given in any philosophical dictionary.

... ... a philosophical dictionary? hahaha
you're joking right? o_0

The word "facts" is defined by philosophers in a certain way, and i used it according to the standard convention. I am not at all committed to a particular view just because i use the word, and i don` t see why you would think so.

the word "fact" while it holds a relatively similar meaning/definition for almost everyone, it can be highly nuanced. furthermore, whether that definition correlates with "reality" is also something that different people while having a generally similar view of, may hold some divergent ideas for it.

as for you constantly touting "defined/said by philosophers" here and there, that it is meaningless and irrelevant- argumentum ad verecundiam -_-

[apeiron]

Like i said defore, i don ` t have a justification for the definition of the word "fact". It is given in any philosophical dictionary.
.

If you remember, what you were ducking was the request for a justification of your use of "state of affairs".

I pointed out that this is a dichotomistic term, one that signifies the global scale (state) and the local scale (affairs). I asked did you notice this fact and understand its logical significance?

So focus, as you keep demanding of everyone else.

[vectorcube]

for the 1000th time: of course "nothing" is NOT a "state of affair"!

but as I said, the question fits in the pattern "why A and not Q?" where A is the fact of being a state of affair (existence, being: whatever you may label it) and Q is not a state of affair... -_-

QUOTE]


Here is what is wrong. A, and Q needs to be a state of affair for the scheme to work.

If G is a not a state of affair. I don ` t see why "not G" is a state of affair.


[QUOTE]it's like asking: why are the states of affair (gawd, this line is beginning to sound incredibly annoying) instead of not being any states of affair. the question "works". you just need to ask it right.

It does not work that way. *Something* that is NOT a state of affair do not fit into the scheme.

[vectorcube]

... ... a philosophical dictionary? hahaha
you're joking right? o_0

Are joking by saying this? hahaha

I think a word when used that commonly within philosophy have a high probability of being in a dictionary. It is a very likely of being in a philosophy dictionary. Why is that surprising?
Why is that funny?


as for you constantly touting "defined/said by philosophers" here and there, that it is meaningless and irrelevant

Why? It is crazy. It is like talking about modality, and not knowing what "possible world" means. Don ` t you want to know what are "possible worlds" mean. Why can ` t i define it according to what philosophers conventional hold to be the case? You make no sense here.

[vectorcube]

If you remember, what you were ducking was the request for a justification of your use of "state of affairs".


What is there to justify? I see a table in front of me is a state of affair. Do you really want a justification? weird...



I pointed out that this is a dichotomistic term, one that signifies the global scale (state) and the local scale (affairs).


Well, i have no idea what dichotomistic mean.





I asked did you notice this fact and understand its logical significance?


Don` t know anything about it. I was not really paying attention, because of 1.

[apeiron]

Well, i have no idea what dichotomistic mean.


As you would say, are you crazy, what you mean, everyone know, look it up in the dictionary, etc.

[ValenceE]

Vectorcube,

If you may, I’d like to get back to your OP…

P) Why is there something rather than nothing?

Analysis:

Take the general form of the question as: Why is there A rather than B?
Where A, and B stands for facts, or state of affair.

A general form of the answer would be something like the following:

There exist fact C such that C makes the obtaining of fact A more likely than the obtaining of fact B. So, when comfronted with "why A rather than B?". One need only to find this unique C that would make A more likely than B.

So, if we are to answer P, then we have to find a fact C such that C makes something more likely than nothing. This is absurd, because C is part of something, and thus, there is no fact of the matter that would make something more likely than nothing. What does this mean? It means that there is no underlying reason for why there is something rather than nothing. That the existence of something is a brute fact.



You start by asking why A rather than B and then give a possible answer by introducing C as a catalyst favouring A over B.

So far this makes sense. Where you go astray is when you assign SOMETHING to A and NOTHING to B, then apply your logical process…

In the initial proposition, BOTH A and B are ‘somethings’ since they are defined as facts, or state of affairs. So, why change the initial context in assigning NOTHING to B? This only brings about the nonsensical answer or explanation you’re trying to use as a thread starter. Furthermore this certainly doesn’t give any reason or proof that ‘something’ has no underlying favouring source.

And, by the way, it is my strong belief that, even if ‘nothing’ would have been, rather than ‘something’, it would still be infinite and able to give rise to mathematics, as it would be equal to Unity.

It then could probably evolve into 'something'. So, maybe we should look into the possibility and hopes of 'nothingness' to exist, or even survive... I don't think it can exist other than also being a state of affair, and, using your arguments, merge with C to become, in itself, the underlying reason for 'something' rather than 'nothing'


Regards,

VE

[qsa]

As you would say, are you crazy, what you mean, everyone know, look it up in the dictionary, etc.

don't tell me, you name is John McCrone

the reviews for your books don't look all that great. But I for one still commend you.
I commend anybody who tries his best. You should have stated your website earlier so that we would have had more interseting debate.

[apeiron]

don't tell me, you name is John McCrone


Sshhh! I am in enough trouble with the moderators here as it is.


the reviews for your books don't look all that great.


"John McCrone's Going Inside is far superior to the vast majority of recent tomes on cognitive neuroscience for the general reader. He rounds up the usual suspects, but at least he does so with some care."
John C Marshall, Nature 400, 132 (1999)

...but what does an Oxford professor reviewing in some flaky journal called Nature really know....

[vectorcube]

As you would say, are you crazy, what you mean, everyone know, look it up in the dictionary, etc.

Must be one of those made up words, GREAT.

[apeiron]

Must be one of those made up words, AGAIN.

Surely to be consistent with modal realism, every possible word must be actual. And indeed actually refer to some possible concept. So what is your objection exactly?

Anyway, seems to be an actual term in this actual world.....

di·chot·o·my
Pronunciation: \dī-ˈkä-tə-mē also də-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural di·chot·o·mies
Etymology: Greek dichotomia, from dichotomos
1 : a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities <the dichotomy between theory and practice>; also : the process or practice of making such a division <dichotomy of the population into two opposed classes>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dichotomy

[vectorcube]

Surely to be consistent with modal realism, every possible word must be actual. And indeed actually refer to some possible concept. So what is your objection exactly?

Anyway, seems to be an actual term in this actual world.....

di·chot·o·my
Pronunciation: \dī-ˈkä-tə-mē also də-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural di·chot·o·mies
Etymology: Greek dichotomia, from dichotomos
1 : a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities <the dichotomy between theory and practice>; also : the process or practice of making such a division <dichotomy of the population into two opposed classes>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dichotomy

I have a feeling you would do that.

I never hear people say "dichotomistic term". I know what a dichotomy is. I don` t know what you are asking me.


modal realism variants are very popular. There are alot of following.

[apeiron]

I never hear people say "dichotomistic term". I know what a dichotomy is. I don` t know what you are asking me.


-istic (is′tik) - of or relating to an action, practice, doctrine, quality, etc
http://www.yourdictionary.com/istic-suffix

So you already know dichotomy and now you know -istic.

[vectorcube]

-istic (is′tik) - of or relating to an action, practice, doctrine, quality, etc
http://www.yourdictionary.com/istic-suffix

So you already know dichotomy and now you know -istic.

wonderful. I think you are mad or something, because it seems you love to talk about everything except philosophy.

[jocaxx]

The Jocaxian Nothingness [Nada Jocaxiano]
João Carlos Holland de Barcellos
translated by Debora Policastro

The “Jocaxian Nothingness” (JN) is the “Nothingness” that exists. It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.

In order to understand and intuit JN as an “existent nothingness”, we can mentally build it as follows: we withdraw all the matter, energy and the field they generate from the universe. Then we can withdraw dark energy and dark matter. What is left is something that is not the nonexistent. Let us continue our mental experiment and suppress elements of the universe: now, we withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. If we do not forget to withdraw anything, what is left is a JN: an existent nothingness.

JN is different from the Nothingness we generally think of. The commonly believed nothingness, which we might call “Trivial Nothingness” to distinguish it from the JN, is something from which nothing can arise, that is, the “Trivial Nothing” follows a rule: “Nothing can happen”. Thus, the “Trivial Nothingness”, the nothingness people generally think of when talking about “nothingness”, is not the simpler possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.

Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists. Such definition is dubious and contains some contradictions as: “If in the nothingness nothing exists, then, nothingness itself does not exist”. No. First, Jocax defined what it means to exist: “Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality”. Therefore, JN has been defined as something that:

1- Has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.)

2- Has no laws (no rules of any kind).

Being so, JN could have physically existed. JN is a construction that differs from the “trivial nothingness” since it does not contain the rule “Nothing can happen”. That way, Jocax liberates his JN from semantic paradoxes like: “If it exists, then it does not exist” and claims that this nothingness is SOMETHING that could have existed. That is, JN is the simpler possible physical structure, something like the minimal state of nature. And also the natural candidate for the origin of the universe.

We must not confuse the definition of the NJ with rules to be followed. It is only the declaration of a state. If nature is in the state defined by conditions 1 and 2 above, we say it is a “Jocaxian-Nothingness”. The state of a system is something that can change, differently from the rule that must be followed by the system (otherwise it would not be a rule). For example, the state “has no physical elements”; it is a state, not a rule because, occasionally this state may change. If it was a rule it could not change (unless another rule eliminated the first one).

Being free of any elements, JN does not presume the existence of any existing thing but its own and, by the “Occam’s Razor”, it must be the simpler state possible of nature, therefore with no need for explanations about its origin. JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past. That is, JN would be the universe itself – defined as a set of all existing things – in its minimal state. Thus we can also say the Universe (being a JN) has always existed.

JN, as well as everything that can be understood by means of logic, must follow the tautology: “it may or may NOT happen”. This tautology – absolute logical truth – as we shall see, has also a semantic value in JN: it allows things to happen (or not).

We cannot say that events in the JN must necessarily occur. Eventually, it is possible that nothing really happens, that is, JN may continue “indefinitely” (time does not exist in a JN) without changing its initial state and with no occurrences. But there is a possibility that random phenomena can derive from this absolute nothingness. This conclusion comes logically from the analysis of a system without premises: as JN, by definition, does not have laws, it can be shaped as a logical system without premises.

We shall interrupt a little in order to open up an explanatory digression. We are dealing with two types of “Jocaxian-Nothingness”: the physical object named “JN”, which was the universe in its minimal state with the properties described above; and the theory which analyses this object, the JN-Theory. The JN-Theory, the theory about the JN-object (this text), uses logical rules to help us understand the JN-Object. But JN-object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. Nevertheless, I do not believe we will let possibilities to JN-object escape if we analyze it according to classic logic. However, we must be aware that this logical analysis (JN-Theory) could maybe limit some potentiality of JN-Object.

Within a system without premises, we cannot conclude that something cannot happen. There are no laws from which we can draw this conclusion. That is, there is no prohibition for anything to happen. If there is no prohibition for anything to happen, then, eventually, something may happen. That is, the tautological logics remain true in a system without premises: “something happens or not”. If something occasionally happens, this something must not obey rules and, therefore, would be totally random and unpredictable.

We call the first JN randomizations Schizo-Creations. This schizo-creations, once they come from something without laws, are totally random and, if we could watch them, they would seem completely “schizophrenic”. Of course with the first randomizations, JN is no longer the original JN as now it owns something, that is, the JN transforms. Because JN is not limited by any laws, it may eventually also generate laws, to which its elements - now itself – would have to obey.

Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does not conflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws. However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, it replaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed (until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true “natural selection” of laws, only a little set of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: “Why does the universe follow logical rules?”

Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the our cosmo, since it is the simpler possible state nature could present: a state of such simplicity there would not be the need to explain its existence. And, by logical consequence of this state, anything could be (or not) randomized, even our physical laws and elementary particles.

[jocaxx]

The “Jocaxian Nothingness” F.A.Q.
Frequently asked questions about the Jocaxian Nothingness “JN”
Jocax, Feb/2009
Translated by Debora Policastro



1 – What is the Jocaxian Nothingness (JN)?

A: The JN, differently from existent things, presents the following properties:
P1- There are no physical elements of any kind (matter, space or energy).
P2- There are no laws of any kind.

2- Does the JN exist?
A: We can only say that the JN exists in case something that has the properties of a JN (P1 and P2 above) exists. Nowadays, the JN does not exist anymore, but it could have existed in a distant past, before the Big-Bang.

3- Is the JN a being?
A: Yes. Once it has properties, it should exist in order to be a recipient of such properties.

4- Could the Jocaxian-Nothingness feature of not having any rules or laws be a rule itself?
A: No. A rule establishes some kind of restriction. For instance: “my car must be red” is a rule, but “my car is red” is not a rule, but the state of the car. Occasionally, the car could be painted blue. Establishing that the “Jocaxian Nothingness” is the state of nature in which there are no rules is not a rule that must be followed, but also a state of nature that could change (or not).

5- Would saying that anything can happen be a rule? An imposition to the Jocaxian Nothingness?
A: Yes. However, if you look at the text I emphasize that in the Jocaxian Nothingness anything can happen OR NOT. This is not a rule, but a logical tautology, an absolute truth in any circumstances or scenarios. That implies that the Jocaxian Nothingness, just like anything, follows a tautology (an absolute truth), not a rule.

6- The Jocaxian Nothingness does not have physical elements or laws. Does it have any POTENTIAL?
A: If “potential” means the possibility of transforming itself, the answer is yes. However, we must bear in mind that possibility is not certainty. The Jocaxian Nothingness could eventually never become or generate something else.

7- Would the Trivial Nothingness, where nothing can happen, be more likely than the “JN”?
A: No! The nothingness people usually think of, which I called “the trivial nothingness” (TN) is infinitely more unlikely to happen as the origin of the universe than the JN. The “trivial nothingness” would have INFINITE embedded rules that must be followed, i.e. it could not generate fields, space, it could not generate a chair; it could not generate physical laws, god, a Big-Bang, life, particles, etc.

8 – Is the “Inexistent Nothingness” purer than the JN?
A: The Inexistent Nothingness is a “nothingness” where nothing exists, not even itself!
Therefore, it is intrinsically contradictory. Since it does not exist, it could not have properties, but once it has the “not having anything” property, it should exist. Thus, if the “IN” exists, it cannot be inexistent, and if it is inexistent, it cannot exist. It is a contradiction, and that is why it was not used as the generator of the cosmos.

9 – What is the difference between the “Universe” and the “Cosmos”?
A: The Universe is the aggregation of everything that exists. Thus, each possible “Bubble Universe” or “Multi-Universe” is, in fact, part of the same Universe. That is why it is more correct to name each “Bubble Universe” as “Bubble Cosmos”. Therefore, a Cosmos would be a place in the universe governed by its own physical laws, isolated and with no interconnection with other cosmos.

10- Is the JN the Universe or has the JN originated the Universe?
A: If we understand the definition of the Universe as being the aggregation of all that exists, the JN would be the universe itself. It would be the universe in its minimal state, the simplest state possible. Therefore, the JN could not originate the universe, since it is the universe itself, where time does not exist. Later it could have materialized randomly one or more cosmos.

11- Is the JN limited to our logic? Could it be illogical?
A: There are two interrelated concepts about the Jocaxian Nothingness: The Jocaxian Nothingness Object (JN-Object) and the Theory about this JN-Object (JN-Theory). The JN-Object is defined as something that has properties relative to the JN (P1 and P2) above. The theory about the JN (JN-Theory) is based on logic and explains how the JN-Object could have materialized our cosmos at random. It is possible to say that the JN-Object does not have laws therefore it does not need to obey logic, and is it correct, indeed. However, by analyzing the JN-Object from our classic logic, we are not attaching new possibilities to the JN-Object, but the opposite: we could, in fact, be limiting the possibilities of the JN-Object which means, maybe it could be more totipotent than we can imagine.

12- Is the JN no longer a JN in case it have materialized something randomly, therefore losing the capacity of doing it?
A: The materializations of the JN are called “schizo-creations”. The Universe was in a JN form. When the first schizo-creation of the JN happens, it means that the JN cannot be the JN anymore, as now the universe has at least one element: its first schizo-creation. In case this schizo-creation is not a law that prevents the universe from materializing other things, like a law that transforms it into a trivial nothingness, then this schizo-creation, which is the evolved JN (EJN), could occasionally continue to generate schizo-creations. Only the generation of laws that restrict the generation of laws could prevent new schizo-creations.

13- Is it possible to isolate a portion of the cosmos and transform it in a JN?

A: Hardly. Since our cosmos is flooded with physical laws, in order to create a JN it would be necessary to withdraw all the physical laws from that portion. No one knows yet if it is possible or how it could be done.

14- Is it necessary to sort laws temporally in order to have a natural selection of laws? That is, would time be a prerequisite?
A: It would not be a big problem in case we needed some “time law” or “time” itself to sort laws materialized by the JN. It would be enough only to “wait” that one of the schizo-creations was a temporal law. Thereafter new laws would be sorted and undergo the “natural selection”.

15- What is the evidence that our cosmos came from a JN?
A: The evidence would be a logical universe where there are no physical contradictions between its physical elements.

[debra]

JN is nonsense - reminicent of string theories dimensions which is also nonsense.

The only requirement for a universe is that numbers & mathematics can exist. And numbers need no physical space and have no mass or size at all. The idea of size is only mathematical.

The concept of 'where is' has no real meaning because that idea is an abstraction of mathematical volumes and is not real as of itself. Its true in the context of mathematics only, and has no truth outside of mathematics. Its easy and simple to grasp.

A place is a mathematical abstraction. I repeat, 3D space - is mathematical only. There could be no other form of it at all. So
JN is an academic argument based on a misconception. (the misconception? the idea that space is real and physical - it cannot possibly be so - space is entirely and completely mathematical in origin - it could not be anything else)

[jocaxx]

I dont thinh so.

Space is the set of the points where the things coud be.
If there are no things then there are NO SPACE.

It is like time: if it have no change ( no state changes) then there is no time too.

By the way, mathematics only exists if there is logic too.

If there is not logic also there is not mathematics.

Beside this, the logic is more complex than the nothingness then there is a necessity of explanation to its existence.

[Sorry!]

JN is nonsense - reminicent of string theories dimensions which is also nonsense.

The only requirement for a universe is that numbers & mathematics can exist. And numbers need no physical space and have no mass or size at all. The idea of size is only mathematical.

The concept of 'where is' has no real meaning because that idea is an abstraction of mathematical volumes and is not real as of itself. Its true in the context of mathematics only, and has no truth outside of mathematics. Its easy and simple to grasp.

A place is a mathematical abstraction. I repeat, 3D space - is mathematical only. There could be no other form of it at all. So
JN is an academic argument based on a misconception. (the misconception? the idea that space is real and physical - it cannot possibly be so - space is entirely and completely mathematical in origin - it could not be anything else)

please enlighten us with a bit of mathematics that is what is called space or time. Not mathematically models on what we perceive it as, no, what they actually are. You seem to be quite sure that there exists something called 'space' and it's mathematical. Prove it.

[apeiron]

The “Jocaxian Nothingness” F.A.Q.
Frequently asked questions about the Jocaxian Nothingness “JN”
Jocax, Feb/2009
Translated by Debora Policastro


Please, in what way is JN different from Anaximander's apeiron (an idea over 2500 years old now) or CS Peirce's vagueness?

I certainly agree with the concept but it is not original. It may perhaps have something distinctive about it, but that is not clear from the FAQ. So please, be scholarly and put JN into the context of other work in a similar vein.

And a key next step is to define the way that an apeiron, a vagueness, a JN, actually develops. I don't see this logic stated as yet.

[Galteeth]

The Jocaxian Nothingness [Nada Jocaxiano]
João Carlos Holland de Barcellos
translated by Debora Policastro

The “Jocaxian Nothingness” (JN) is the “Nothingness” that exists. It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.

In order to understand and intuit JN as an “existent nothingness”, we can mentally build it as follows: we withdraw all the matter, energy and the field they generate from the universe. Then we can withdraw dark energy and dark matter. What is left is something that is not the nonexistent. Let us continue our mental experiment and suppress elements of the universe: now, we withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. If we do not forget to withdraw anything, what is left is a JN: an existent nothingness.

JN is different from the Nothingness we generally think of. The commonly believed nothingness, which we might call “Trivial Nothingness” to distinguish it from the JN, is something from which nothing can arise, that is, the “Trivial Nothing” follows a rule: “Nothing can happen”. Thus, the “Trivial Nothingness”, the nothingness people generally think of when talking about “nothingness”, is not the simpler possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.

Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists. Such definition is dubious and contains some contradictions as: “If in the nothingness nothing exists, then, nothingness itself does not exist”. No. First, Jocax defined what it means to exist: “Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality”. Therefore, JN has been defined as something that:

1- Has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.)

2- Has no laws (no rules of any kind).

Being so, JN could have physically existed. JN is a construction that differs from the “trivial nothingness” since it does not contain the rule “Nothing can happen”. That way, Jocax liberates his JN from semantic paradoxes like: “If it exists, then it does not exist” and claims that this nothingness is SOMETHING that could have existed. That is, JN is the simpler possible physical structure, something like the minimal state of nature. And also the natural candidate for the origin of the universe.

We must not confuse the definition of the NJ with rules to be followed. It is only the declaration of a state. If nature is in the state defined by conditions 1 and 2 above, we say it is a “Jocaxian-Nothingness”. The state of a system is something that can change, differently from the rule that must be followed by the system (otherwise it would not be a rule). For example, the state “has no physical elements”; it is a state, not a rule because, occasionally this state may change. If it was a rule it could not change (unless another rule eliminated the first one).

Being free of any elements, JN does not presume the existence of any existing thing but its own and, by the “Occam’s Razor”, it must be the simpler state possible of nature, therefore with no need for explanations about its origin. JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past. That is, JN would be the universe itself – defined as a set of all existing things – in its minimal state. Thus we can also say the Universe (being a JN) has always existed.

JN, as well as everything that can be understood by means of logic, must follow the tautology: “it may or may NOT happen”. This tautology – absolute logical truth – as we shall see, has also a semantic value in JN: it allows things to happen (or not).

We cannot say that events in the JN must necessarily occur. Eventually, it is possible that nothing really happens, that is, JN may continue “indefinitely” (time does not exist in a JN) without changing its initial state and with no occurrences. But there is a possibility that random phenomena can derive from this absolute nothingness. This conclusion comes logically from the analysis of a system without premises: as JN, by definition, does not have laws, it can be shaped as a logical system without premises.

We shall interrupt a little in order to open up an explanatory digression. We are dealing with two types of “Jocaxian-Nothingness”: the physical object named “JN”, which was the universe in its minimal state with the properties described above; and the theory which analyses this object, the JN-Theory. The JN-Theory, the theory about the JN-object (this text), uses logical rules to help us understand the JN-Object. But JN-object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. Nevertheless, I do not believe we will let possibilities to JN-object escape if we analyze it according to classic logic. However, we must be aware that this logical analysis (JN-Theory) could maybe limit some potentiality of JN-Object.

Within a system without premises, we cannot conclude that something cannot happen. There are no laws from which we can draw this conclusion. That is, there is no prohibition for anything to happen. If there is no prohibition for anything to happen, then, eventually, something may happen. That is, the tautological logics remain true in a system without premises: “something happens or not”. If something occasionally happens, this something must not obey rules and, therefore, would be totally random and unpredictable.

We call the first JN randomizations Schizo-Creations. This schizo-creations, once they come from something without laws, are totally random and, if we could watch them, they would seem completely “schizophrenic”. Of course with the first randomizations, JN is no longer the original JN as now it owns something, that is, the JN transforms. Because JN is not limited by any laws, it may eventually also generate laws, to which its elements - now itself – would have to obey.

Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does not conflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws. However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, it replaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed (until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true “natural selection” of laws, only a little set of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: “Why does the universe follow logical rules?”

Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the our cosmo, since it is the simpler possible state nature could present: a state of such simplicity there would not be the need to explain its existence. And, by logical consequence of this state, anything could be (or not) randomized, even our physical laws and elementary particles.

If the system lacks laws, how can you make conclusions about what will or will not emerge?

( I don't entirely disagree with the concept, but I am being a good skeptic.)

[Galteeth]

By the way, I had never heard of JN, but this idea had occurred to me too. I think it's a fairly common idea. I thought of it more like, if if the universe becomes completely random, then everything will have to eventually emerge, and when something emerges that is internally consistent, by chance, it will appear as a rationally governed universe because consciousness is dependent on consistent laws (anthropic principle type reasoning). I think Boltzmann had a similar idea too.

[apeiron]

I thought of it more like, if if the universe becomes completely random, then everything will have to eventually emerge,

Yes, it is an idea as old as civilisation. But surprisingly little considered in Western mainstream thinking.

As I say, you need two things to make the idea more precise, more useful.

First you need to be able to describe the state of the initial conditions. It must be more random than just random.

Second you need some "lawful" way the initial state can develop its emergent regularities (self-organise to have its habits or natural laws).

With the randomness, for example, the initial conditions (vagueness, apeiron, potentia, JN) cannot be some kind of ensemble of crisp states. A set of already existing probabilities. It must be more like the entangled indeterminancy of a QM wavefunction. No hidden variables allowed!

[Galteeth]

Yes, it is an idea as old as civilisation. But surprisingly little considered in Western mainstream thinking.

As I say, you need two things to make the idea more precise, more useful.

First you need to be able to describe the state of the initial conditions. It must be more random than just random.

Second you need some "lawful" way the initial state can develop its emergent regularities (self-organise to have its habits or natural laws).

With the randomness, for example, the initial conditions (vagueness, apeiron, potentia, JN) cannot be some kind of ensemble of crisp states. A set of already existing probabilities. It must be more like the entangled indeterminancy of a QM wavefunction. No hidden variables allowed!

Doesn't this just regress the problem (what causes the "lawfullness" of certain forms of emergence or the probabilities?)

[apeiron]

Doesn't this just regress the problem (what causes the "lawfullness" of certain forms of emergence or the probabilities?)

How does it regress things? The argument is about dissolving what we know to exist back into some kind of pre-existence. And that would include BOTH laws and initial conditions, both the local substances and the global forms.

So in this view, both laws and the stuff constrained by law are just a vague potential, a forment of possibility. Then they both emerge together, synergistically.

There is no need for an external realm of meta-law that then makes the emerging laws "lawful" because this is an internalist logic (as regards the development of both the initial conditions and the laws). There is no "outside".

It is a self-making or bootstrapping, background independent, approach to causality...in complete contrast to the usual anglo-saxon background dependent models, where there is assumed to be a fixed background of a creating god, or eternal physical law, or Platonic mathematical form, or some other external cause.

Infinite regress is a problem for background dependent stories, not internalist ones which are creating their own backgrounds out of much less than nothing (ie: vagueness).

Well, that would be the claim which you might want to examine. :smile:

[debra]

It is a self-making or bootstrapping, background independent, approach to causality...in complete contrast to the usual anglo-saxon background dependent models, where there is assumed to be a fixed background of a creating god, or eternal physical law, or Platonic mathematical form, or some other external cause.

Infinite regress is a problem for background dependent stories, not internalist ones which are creating their own backgrounds out of much less than nothing (ie: vagueness).


I believe you are stuck in thoughts of a universe made of particles, energy and physical space. Trying to analyse that is like trying to analyse a computer simulation as if you were inside that simulation. i.e. belief that what you see around you (in the simulation) is reality.

Intelligence is the key, because its intelligence that is making everything. Even the way
a particle collides with another is a simple form of intelligence running on mathematical lines.

IMO there are no deep unsolvable mysteries. The way the universe works overall is very very simple. But there are massive complexities in how objects interact.

Causality? That is again simple, its cause before effect, and is a very simple mathematical
law that shapes time - why? Because it logically must shape time. Back to intelligence you see.

[debra]

Just suppose for one moment that the universe is made from mathematics implemented in information. Pls forget atoms, energy, space for one moment.

Well, information could be thought of as 1s and 0s or simply numbers.

So suppose we are right and the universe is made entirely from numbers.
JN? Sure, because numbers need no place or space to exist. They exist
in nothing. Its beautifully self-consistent, can't you see?

its the numbers existing in nothingness that make what we think of as something.
So simple.

[apeiron]

Causality? That is again simple, its cause before effect, and is a very simple mathematical
law that shapes time - why? Because it logically must shape time. Back to intelligence you see.

Any references?

[Galteeth]

How does it regress things? The argument is about dissolving what we know to exist back into some kind of pre-existence. And that would include BOTH laws and initial conditions, both the local substances and the global forms.

So in this view, both laws and the stuff constrained by law are just a vague potential, a forment of possibility. Then they both emerge together, synergistically.

There is no need for an external realm of meta-law that then makes the emerging laws "lawful" because this is an internalist logic (as regards the development of both the initial conditions and the laws). There is no "outside".

It is a self-making or bootstrapping, background independent, approach to causality...in complete contrast to the usual anglo-saxon background dependent models, where there is assumed to be a fixed background of a creating god, or eternal physical law, or Platonic mathematical form, or some other external cause.

Infinite regress is a problem for background dependent stories, not internalist ones which are creating their own backgrounds out of much less than nothing (ie: vagueness).

Well, that would be the claim which you might want to examine. :smile:

Ok, I re-read your post a bit more carefully, and I agree. As I said, this was very similar to what I had thought of (another image was a computer generating completely random sequences untill one of the sequences contained a coherent story or program.) I still find some hints of a pre-existing structure (some laws contradict other laws, destroying them). If that process was totally random, even the relationship amongst laws, you could end up with totally absurd possibilities! I supposse it makes as much sense as any other explanation.

[debra]

A computer generating random sequences would not be necessary because intelligences exist and could work out what to generate. An intelligence? An advanced form of ours or computer evolved intelligence. It seems required to evolve over time since only one-step intelligence exists initially.

[Galteeth]

A computer generating random sequences would not be necessary because intelligences exist and could work out what to generate. An intelligence? An advanced form of ours or computer evolved intelligence. It seems required to evolve over time since only one-step intelligence exists initially.

I'm sorry, I didn't follow that at all. Could you clarify?

[jocaxx]

I thought of it more like, if if the universe becomes completely random, then everything will have to eventually emerge, and when something emerges that is internally consistent, by chance, it will appear as a rationally governed universe because consciousness is dependent on consistent laws (anthropic principle type reasoning). I think Boltzmann had a similar idea too.

There are 2 thinks that make it the Jocaxian-Nothingness a new Idea:

1-The logic cause of 'why' the nothingness can generate something: 'The lack of laws'

2-The answer of the question 'why our laws follow the logic'?
because the 'mutations' (random generation) and 'natural selection' of this mutation.




I thought of it more like, if if the universe becomes completely random, then everything will have to eventually emerge,

Yes, it is an idea as old as civilisation. But surprisingly little considered in Western mainstream thinking.


.
The news is the *CAUSE* of why the nothing can generate something.


How does it regress things? The argument is about dissolving what we know to exist back into some kind of pre-existence. And that would include BOTH laws and initial conditions, both the local substances and the global forms.


I dont know if I understand but, if we have the minimal state possible,
the universe in its simpliest (minimal) conditions,
then we dont need something to cause this, because anything else is more complex
than the nothingness.

[apeiron]

Ok, I re-read your post a bit more carefully, and I agree. As I said, this was very similar to what I had thought of (another image was a computer generating completely random sequences untill one of the sequences contained a coherent story or program.)

Another mental image could be Per Bak's sandhills.

Because I model vagueness as being about symmetry and symmetry breaking, we can imagine it as a realm of fluctuating possibility at criticality. Most of the fluctuations would damp out - be swamped by neighbouring fluctuations. But then this sea of fluctuations would eventually find some direction in which to symmetry-break and would undergo a phase transition to some cooler, more ordered, regime.

So as with the avalanches on sandhills, most would be small slips. But occasionally very large events can occur, taking the energy of many potential smaller ones with them.

Kind of like Linde's fractal spawning multiverse story of inflation too. And the hypothesised scalar inflaton field is indeed the kind of vague fluctuating state which could spontaneously breaking into an expanding and cooling more ordered solution - a big bang that becomes a heat death void like our universe for example.

(Though an inflaton field itself is too concrete a state, not actually vague enough, IMHO. So I'm not a huge fan of inflation mechanisms as such. Inflation immediately brings up infinite regress again as you would point out.)

[apeiron]

There are 2 thinks that make it the Jocaxian-Nothingness a new Idea:

1-The logic cause of 'why' the nothingness can generate something: 'The lack of laws'

2-The answer of the question 'why our laws follow the logic'?
because the 'mutations' (random generation) and 'natural selection' of this mutation.



So if this is all that is new about it, then nothing is new about it.

Circa 560 BC.....

For Anaximander, the principle of things, the constituent of all substances, is nothing determined and not an element such as water in Thales' view. Neither is it something halfway between air and water, or between air and fire, thicker than air and fire, or more subtle than water and earth.[15] Anaximander argues that water cannot embrace all of the opposites found in nature — for example, water can only be wet, never dry — and therefore cannot be the one primary substance; nor could any of the other candidates. He postulated the apeiron as a substance that, although not directly perceptible to us, could explain the opposites he saw around him.

Anaximander explains how the four elements of ancient physics (air, earth, water and fire) are formed, and how Earth and terrestrial beings are formed through their interactions. Unlike other Pre-Socratics, he never defines this principle precisely, and it has generally been understood (e.g., by Aristotle and by Saint Augustine) as a sort of primal chaos. According to him, the Universe originates in the separation of opposites in the primordial matter. It embraces the opposites of hot and cold, wet and dry, and directs the movement of things; an entire host of shapes and differences then grow that are found in "all the worlds" (for he believed there were many).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximander#Apeiron

[baywax]

Anaximander argues that water cannot embrace all of the opposites found in nature — for example, water can only be wet, never dry

Anaximander must have never been to Inuit country (Arctic Circle). The (water in the form of ice) is a dry as salt there!

[apeiron]

Anaximander must have never been to Inuit country (Arctic Circle). The (water in the form of ice) is a dry as salt there!

The Inuits must be a thirsty bunch if they can only find "dry" water up there. But I guess the ocean of salt surrounding me is not really a suitable "wetness" either. What exactly was your odd point here?

Anaximander was apparently a considerable explorer, founding a colony in Thrace, it is said. He also drew the first known world map it is claimed. But yes, the artic circle was probably not familiar to him.

[Phrak]

My take on 'Nothing'.

Nothing is better than a Cold Beer.
A Warm Beer is better than Nothing.
Therefore a Warm Beer is better than a Cold One.

[baywax]

The Inuits must be a thirsty bunch if they can only find "dry" water up there. But I guess the ocean of salt surrounding me is not really a suitable "wetness" either. What exactly was your odd point here?

Anaximander was apparently a considerable explorer, founding a colony in Thrace, it is said. He also drew the first known world map it is claimed. But yes, the artic circle was probably not familiar to him.

You never know. My point was that opposites can be provided by the same subject matter, in a different state form. For instance, a living thing can only be dead if it was living so the living thing provides its own opposite. Water, while wet in one state, can actually burn you in another state (ice).

This would make the idea of "something coming out of nothing" an easy concept to accept. The fact that different states change the behaviour of an element to the extreme of being an opposite form and function suggests that the same could be true of "nothing" when it changes states. Obviously, in this case, the state of nothing changes to "something" and is manifest the way water can change to ice... under proper conditions.

I'd like to know more about Anaximander and his map making and I'll give that an ogle. Thanks!

[jocaxx]

Originally Posted by jocaxx
There are 2 thinks that make it the Jocaxian-Nothingness a new Idea:

1-The logic cause of 'why' the nothingness can generate something: 'The lack of laws'

2-The answer of the question 'why our laws follow the logic'?
because the 'mutations' (random generation) and 'natural selection' of this mutation.
So if this is all that is new about it, then nothing is new about it.

Circa 560 BC.....



He did not say that the LACK OF LAWS is the REASON to things pop into existence.
Beyoind this he assume some substance how pre-conditions:

"... He postulated the apeiron as a substance that, although not directly perceptible to us, could explain the opposites he saw around him...."

He did not say 'apeiron' is the nothingness, also could be God.
And he did not say anything about laws or rules. Its is essential to Nj theory.
.

[century1800]

What if existence does not exist as such (what science studies now)? Why existence exists? Why there is what is called life? Why do we have to be here in the first place? Why do we have to exist? Why there is what is called existence? Why existence exists as such?

I think some of the questions have been questions from time immemorial. I can’t help but ask and keep asking. Something in life is great beyond comprehension.

[Richard87]

You can't have a top without a bottom.
You can’t have up without down.
You can’t have left without right.
You can’t have in without out.
You can't have nothing without something. Therefore something must exist.

[century1800]

Yes, something must exist because that is how existence is patterned or existed as such and our understanding is limited to such pattern/framework; therefore it still does not answer the question ‘why existence existed as such (pattern/framework)’. This reality is beyond comprehension and makes human dumbfounded.

[jocaxx]

Why existence exists? ...Why there is what is called existence?

because the nothingness is not stable.

(There is no law to force, to keep, it be a nothing for ever.)




What if existence does not exist as such (what science studies now)? ...
Why there is what is called life? Why do we have to be here in the first place?... Why existence exists as such?


Look for "The Destropic Principle"
or : http://www.genismo.com/englishtext_03.htm



Why do we have to exist?

We do not !
We are here by chance.

[Richard87]

You can't have nothing without something, much as you can't have in without out, left without right etc.

[Newai]

You can't have a top without a bottom.
You can’t have up without down.
You can’t have left without right.
You can’t have in without out.
You can't have nothing without something. Therefore something must exist.

I don't see why. A bleuarghimort does not exist beyond the word I made up for it. Because it does not exist, there has to be something that does exist in its place?

[jocaxx]

You can't have nothing without something, much as you can't have in without out, left without right etc.

I do not think so.
In the universe, for example, we can have NO unicorn.
Or , in some time , we can have life or not have it !
I do not think it is a general and absolute law of the universe, at most
some rule of the our language in order to define some concepts !



I don't see why. A bleuarghimort does not exist beyond the word I made up for it. Because it does not exist, there has to be something that does exist in its place?

Yes, I agree.

[robheus]

P) Why is there something rather than nothing?


Some claim that the question is unanswerable, because for any say X that would exist and determine/explain there would be something rather then nothing, the question then repeats itself and asks: why does X exist? etc.

But really, the question is bogus. It is meaningless.

Firstly because the question assumes there is something instead of nothing. The problem with this point of view is that nothing in and of itself does not mean anything, it is only meaningfull if there indeed are somethings which do or do not exist.
It is the same issue with darkness. There is darkness because there is light. Without light, neither there would be darkness. So either there is light and there is darkness, or neither light nor darkness exist.

[debra]

Some claim that the question is unanswerable, because for any say X that would exist and determine/explain there would be something rather then nothing, the question then repeats itself and asks: why does X exist? etc.

But really, the question is bogus. It is meaningless.

Firstly because the question assumes there is something instead of nothing. The problem with this point of view is that nothing in and of itself does not mean anything, it is only meaningfull if there indeed are somethings which do or do not exist.
It is the same issue with darkness. There is darkness because there is light. Without light, neither there would be darkness. So either there is light and there is darkness, or neither light nor darkness exist.

I give talks on how the universe can be made from mathematics and implemented in information, to which some top me (as people usually want to do) by saying, well... who invented mathematics then? I think they want to imply God invented mathematics.

So can one say why mathematics? or is that similarly a bogus question?

[apeiron]

So can one say why mathematics? or is that similarly a bogus question?

Maths is the science of patterns - so it is about the laws of form. So the metaphysical question is in fact the classical dichotomy....why form? and why substance?

They are both mutually exclusive as concepts and yet each entails the existence of the other.

If you can ask why X, there is always also going to be why not-X? So why nothing similarly entails the matching query of why not everything?

Of course, we know that nothing is an impossible state (there is already something) and so what does this say about the not-X state of everything?

Information is form atomised - reality broken into bits and treated wrongly as a new kind of universal substance. But that's another story.

[qsa]

I give talks on how the universe can be made from mathematics and implemented in information, to which some top me (as people usually want to do) by saying, well... who invented mathematics then? I think they want to imply God invented mathematics.

So can one say why mathematics? or is that similarly a bogus question?



That is the beauty of math nobody has to create it. A circle describes a relationship between numbers (Pi) is true no matter what. They are more real and to the point than anything else we know. And because they look so REAL so for sure REALITY is made of it. Notice the words REAL and REALITY, It is not about rhyming

If you put an apple in front of a large group of sane people and ask them to describe it. First, some will say it is an apple some might doubt and say it is a fake decoration, and upon closer examination they will agree on that it is an apple but they will differ as to some other aspect of it, say its smell or taste and so on. And if eventually they manage to test all of its aspect with some sophisticated machinery then they will differ about what it is really made of, On and oN. Until the so called TOE. what is TOE? Math (including logic) is not like that, although some will argue that they are similar, I agree to that statment as to regard of discovery. Physical theories have been refined by correcting errors, But Math more offen it has added more truths than "correcting errors".

No wonder why we use Math when we are confused, it is the only thing we are certain of more than anything else. The reason that math descibes reality is clear now, reality is made out of a mathematical structure.Howelse would you describe a mathematical structure!

check my website in my profile for more info.

[robheus]

I give talks on how the universe can be made from mathematics and implemented in information, to which some top me (as people usually want to do) by saying, well... who invented mathematics then? I think they want to imply God invented mathematics.

So can one say why mathematics? or is that similarly a bogus question?

If you implement mathematics in information, on what physical media is that information carried?

So how could that be possible?

[disregardthat]

There is no logical contradiction in the possibility of nothing existing at all. The analogy between light and darkness does not work in this way, it is a mystery that the world exists at all.

[qsa]

There is no logical contradiction in the possibility of nothing existing at all. The analogy between light and darkness does not work in this way, it is a mystery that the world exists at all.

True only if not for the fact that mathematical facts exist.

If you implement mathematics in information, on what physical media is that information carried?

So how could that be possible?

information theory is about statistical rules in mathematics.i.e. relations between random variables.it is similart to 2+3=5. 2 is the source 3 is channel effect(media) 5 is what is recieved (of course mathematically more complicated which is based on probabilty theory). the media is the hypothetical channel which can represent physical media in classical physics(origionaly info theory arose from the EE field). For example, it can represents attenuation of info going from source to sink,where the source could be the probability of finding a particle at a point that will affect some other point atenuated by say the distance between them. That is a rough example. In another word, the source, the reciever and the channel can be purely mathematical entities which can not only model classical physical situations, but it is claimed that it models reality at the fundamental level which itself is believed to be mathematical by some people , like myself.

[disregardthat]

True only if not for the fact that mathematical facts exist.




Mathematical platonism does not skip my point.

[qsa]

Mathematical platonism does not skip my point.


While the Idea of Platonism have been known and understood in one fashion or another for a long time, its philosophy has never suggest that existence is math. It was mostly about the nature of math. Coming to realize that existence is nothing but mathematics have come from strong implications due to research coming very close to finding TOE, and it happened gradually over 80 years period. Starting with GR where geometry played an astonishing role. Then Charles Misner tried to devise a TOE theory of geometry and also of pure logic(pre calculus). These days the level of abstraction in describing physics, like non-commutative geometry, TQFT, Quantum computer theory (Fontini Markopoulo) and many other theories makes one wonder really hard. Of course, at this juncture some people are more convinced than others. The similarity with Platonism is only coincidental. My own research has convinced me even more, http://www.qsa.netne.net

[robheus]

There is no logical contradiction in the possibility of nothing existing at all. The analogy between light and darkness does not work in this way, it is a mystery that the world exists at all.

It's not a mystery, there is nothing to ponder. It is just a brute fact. There is no reason for the existence of the world, no magical entity behind it, nothing of the sort. The world just exists.

[debra]

If you implement mathematics in information, on what physical media is that information carried?

So how could that be possible?

That is the whole point - 'physical media' is what information itself makes.
There is no such thing as physical anything.


TASK - build a universe from nothing:
Lets say we think of nothing as a point. That is nothing eh?
Can we put objects into nothing? No - there is no room for them.

Can we put numbers into nothing? Yes - numbers do not need a space.
Then the numbers create all that we believe is physical reality - including an allusion to physical space. The space is made from numbered co-ordinates - its not a real space.

There you go - that is logically consistent even for us humans.

[disregardthat]

It's not a mystery, there is nothing to ponder. It is just a brute fact. There is no reason for the existence of the world, no magical entity behind it, nothing of the sort. The world just exists.

There is no reason not to ponder "brute facts", and nothing magical is required to wonder why the world exists at all. It seems to me that you are trying to sweep your lack of explanations of the worlds existence under the carpet by dogmatically stating that it "cannot be pondered".

[disregardthat]

While the Idea of Platonism have been known and understood in one fashion or another for a long time, its philosophy has never suggest that existence is math. It was mostly about the nature of math. Coming to realize that existence is nothing but mathematics have come from strong implications due to research coming very close to finding TOE, and it happened gradually over 80 years period. Starting with GR where geometry played an astonishing role. Then Charles Misner tried to devise a TOE theory of geometry and also of pure logic(pre calculus). These days the level of abstraction in describing physics, like non-commutative geometry, TQFT, Quantum computer theory (Fontini Markopoulo) and many other theories makes one wonder really hard. Of course, at this juncture some people are more convinced than others. The similarity with Platonism is only coincidental. My own research has convinced me even more, http://www.qsa.netne.net

Prostrating your knowledge of this does not touch the point however. It takes a spiritual leap of faith to think that mathematical existence and the nature of existence itself is interchangable.

[debra]

There is no reason not to ponder "brute facts", and nothing magical is required to wonder why the world exists at all. It seems to me that you are trying to sweep your lack of explanations of the worlds existence under the carpet by dogmatically stating that it "cannot be pondered".

I agree that saying it is a brute fact that the universe exists is a resignation of intelligence. I take the opposite view and believe that it is explainable and probably simple to understand using good old rationality and no spirituality needed.

[robheus]

There is no reason not to ponder "brute facts", and nothing magical is required to wonder why the world exists at all. It seems to me that you are trying to sweep your lack of explanations of the worlds existence under the carpet by dogmatically stating that it "cannot be pondered".

That is not dogmatic, but based on reasoning. Suppose you (or someone else) comes up with a real explanation of why the world exists, and let's name that reason X. So the world exists then because X exists. But then you're hit again by the same type of question: why does X exist rather then not? Either you state that X must be assumed to exist by definition, or you once again hit the same type of question, which can be repeated indefinately.

So, in summary, it can not be stated that the existence of the world is based on, or caused by, the existence of some other entity, because for that entity we are perfectly entitled to re-ask the same question, and we can re-reaise the question indefinately for any real existing entity we put forward as our explenation.

This leads to the conclusion that the existence of the world can not be based on the existence of some other entity.

[robheus]

I agree that saying it is a brute fact that the universe exists is a resignation of intelligence. I take the opposite view and believe that it is explainable and probably simple to understand using good old rationality and no spirituality needed.

Like I explained in the above post, no such rational reason can exist. And because no possible rational reason can exist, some resort to spiritual reasons, because the wiring of our brains protest against facts of reality which can not be explained, so we invent a reason for ourselves to keep us happy.
It defies our rational capacities to think or assume that something can or does exist, without there being a possibility of explaining why it exists, since for all other existing things, such an explenation in principle exists (and in many cases can be found and is open to investigation, that is what science is all about), just not for the world in total.

[robheus]

I give talks on how the universe can be made from mathematics and implemented in information, to which some top me (as people usually want to do) by saying, well... who invented mathematics then? I think they want to imply God invented mathematics.

So can one say why mathematics? or is that similarly a bogus question?

You're exactly raising the same question again. If the existence of the world would be based on the existence of mathematics, the question then drops down to: why does mathematics exist rather then not. No real answer to that question can exist.

It does not matter as to what we propose as to what the fundamental cause or reason for the world were to be, the question simply reraises itself again and again, and in the end, we must concluce that no such reason in principle can exist.

So we can propose that the existence of the world depends on the existence of the stuff we call matter, but then once again, there is no reason that can possible be given of why there would be matter rather then not. The simple fact of reality is that reality exists, without there being anything that can explain that fact.

[Erwins_mat]

http://www.hedweb.com/witherall/zero.htm


What makes his suggestion interesting, in my opinion, is that it invokes a powerful intuition that the totality of the real, "substantial" world (the world of physical things) is ultimately indistinguishable from the void. That is, the substance of the world as a whole is identical with nothingness, and reality is interpreted as the realisation of Zero. This Zero, however, need not be interpreted as a number. Whether it is a number or not, it has more complexity, in this context, than has hitherto been imagined, for it includes the entire universe - indeed it is the "final result" of all the properties and processes of the universe. It is the ultimate emptiness of existence. Pearce sometimes uses terminology which reflects the fact that 0 is to be treated as a state of affairs rather than a number, when he says that his hypothesis is "that zero is the case".


In other words, Everything and Nothing turn out to be the same thing....

[robheus]

http://www.hedweb.com/witherall/zero.htm



In other words, Everything and Nothing turn out to be the same thing....

It can of course be stated that the reality of any (physical) something to exist, say an object, must be related to other things which exist apart from and independend of this first object.
The first object has a reality outside and independend of itself, and can have an objective relation to such external objects, and can therefore be said to exist objectively.

But for the world in total, no such external reality can exist, so no objective relations can exist (there is nothing that exists outside and independend of the totality of the world), the world in total is indistinguishable (even in principe) from nothingness.

[disregardthat]

That is not dogmatic, but based on reasoning. Suppose you (or someone else) comes up with a real explanation of why the world exists, and let's name that reason X. So the world exists then because X exists. But then you're hit again by the same type of question: why does X exist rather then not? Either you state that X must be assumed to exist by definition, or you once again hit the same type of question, which can be repeated indefinately.

So, in summary, it can not be stated that the existence of the world is based on, or caused by, the existence of some other entity, because for that entity we are perfectly entitled to re-ask the same question, and we can re-reaise the question indefinately for any real existing entity we put forward as our explenation.

This leads to the conclusion that the existence of the world can not be based on the existence of some other entity.

To ponder the existence of the universe is not equivalent to searching an explanation of the existence of the universe. One can be wonder about that the universe exist, as opposed to not exist - but this is not the same as wonder what the reason is for that the universe exists. To think of a fact is not necessarily the same as thinking of the reasons for a fact. Ultimately, a reason is merely a consistency with other facts - so thinking there can be a reason whatsoever for the existence of anything is a path filled with logical pitholes.

You are coming up with meaningless semantics which for me is a attempt of sweeping something under the carpet. Reaching ad absurdum in your argument is rather an indication of the fault in the argument itself.

[robheus]

To ponder the existence of the universe is not equivalent to searching an explanation of the existence of the universe. One can be wonder about that the universe exist, as opposed to not exist - but this is not the same as wonder what the reason is for that the universe exists. To think of a fact is not necessarily the same as thinking of the reasons for a fact. Ultimately, a reason is merely a consistency with other facts - so thinking there can be a reason whatsoever for the existence of anything is a path filled with logical pitholes.

You are coming up with meaningless semantics which for me is a attempt of sweeping something under the carpet. Reaching ad absurdum in your argument is rather an indication of the fault in the argument itself.

The topic reads: "Why something rather then nothing" and this seeks to find a reason or explenation for why that is the case.
And my logical conclusion was that no such reason or explenation can exist.

We were not merely pondering the existing of the universe. The only meaningfull way of pondering the existence of the universe is to ponder HOW it exists, which is the subject of physics and cosmology. But the topic is not about this HOW question, but merely the meta/physical question.

[robheus]

To ponder the existence of the universe is not equivalent to searching an explanation of the existence of the universe. One can be wonder about that the universe exist, as opposed to not exist - but this is not the same as wonder what the reason is for that the universe exists. To think of a fact is not necessarily the same as thinking of the reasons for a fact. Ultimately, a reason is merely a consistency with other facts - so thinking there can be a reason whatsoever for the existence of anything is a path filled with logical pitholes.

You are coming up with meaningless semantics which for me is a attempt of sweeping something under the carpet. Reaching ad absurdum in your argument is rather an indication of the fault in the argument itself.


If I say "I wonder at the existence of the world" I am misusing language. Let me explain this: It has a perfectly good and clear sense to say that I wonder at something being the case, we all understand what it means to say that I wonder at the size of a dog which is bigger than anyone I have ever seen before or at any thing which, in the common sense of the word, is extraordinary. In every such case I wonder at something being the case which I could conceive not to be the case. I wonder at the size of this dog because I could conceive of a dog of another, namely the normal size, at which I would not wonder. To say "I wonder at such and such being the case" has only sense if I can imagine it not to be the case. In this sense one can wonder at the existence of, say, a house when one sees it and has not visited it for a long time and has imagined that it had been pulled down in the meantime. But it is nonsense to say that I wonder at the existence of the world, because I cannot imagine it not existing. I could of course wonder at the world round me being as it is. If for instance I had this experience while looking into the blue sky, I could wonder at the sky being blue as opposed to the case when it's clouded. But that's not what I mean. I am wondering at the sky being whatever it is. One might be tempted to say that what I am wondering at is a tautology, namely at the sky being blue or not blue. But then it's just nonsense to say that one is wondering at a tautology.13

Source: http://www.hedweb.com/witherall/existence.htm

[apeiron]

So, in summary, it can not be stated that the existence of the world is based on, or caused by, the existence of some other entity, because for that entity we are perfectly entitled to re-ask the same question, and we can re-reaise the question indefinately for any real existing entity we put forward as our explenation.


This clearly is the difficulty. But there are two steps that at least ease the issue.

I refer back to post 4.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2412678&postcount=4

First you can swap the word exist for persist. If you see reality as a process rather than a structure, then that puts you into a developmental perspective rather than a creationist mindset.

Second, you can swap the idea of crisp beginnings for vague ones. Vagueness is the least we can imagine being, so its existence/persistence presents us with the smallest ontic issue.

It may not be a final answer, but it would be progress on the question. It was also the original metaphysical view of reality.

(Oh, I forgot. The third probably even more discomforting way to ease the angst over the usual framing of the "why anything?" question is to swap first causes for final cause.

Teleological arguments, in other words. The future draws reality into shape in the same sense as an attractor does in complexity theory.

This goes nicely with vagueness and persistence. Again, it is all about unpacking everything we normally subsume under the notion of "existence". Subtract away structure, information, organisation - put all these things in reality's future rather than at its beginning - and we can start indeed with less than nothing.)

[M Grandin]

Maybe I have misunderstood OP question. But to me the answer is simple:
As soon as we are thinking, at least a thought exists - not to mention apparatus
(brain) for generating that thought. Therefore we cannot even think about this
issue without "something" exists.

But if there was nothing, just emptiness, no thought could be generated. We cannot even imagine looking at an empty world from "outside" and say "There we have an empty world
containing nothing!" Because the concept "world" must also include any observer. Also a world just imagined by a brain, contains that observer and therefore is not empty.

My point of view may be too trivial and perhaps I have not fully understood the complexity
of OP question. :biggrin:

[robheus]

Maybe I have misunderstood OP question. But to me the answer is simple:
As soon as we are thinking, at least a thought exists - not to mention apparatus
(brain) for generating that thought. Therefore we cannot even think about this
issue without "something" exists.

But if there was nothing, just emptiness, no thought could be generated. We cannot even imagine looking at an empty world from "outside" and say "There we have an empty world
containing nothing!" Because the concept "world" must also include any observer. Also a world just imagined by a brain, contains that observer and therefore is not empty.

My point of view may be too trivial and perhaps I have not fully understood the complexity
of OP question. :biggrin:

You're quite correct. Even the imagining of an "empty" world, already contains the imagination and the imaginator, and hence is not and can not be a completely empty world devoid of everything.

[baywax]

You're quite correct. Even the imagining of an "empty" world, already contains the imagination and the imaginator, and hence is not and can not be a completely empty world devoid of everything.

Exactly.

However, no answer will ever answer "why" there is something rather than nothing... except to say

nothing does not exist

[qsa]

Prostrating your knowledge of this does not touch the point however. It takes a spiritual leap of faith to think that mathematical existence and the nature of existence itself is interchangable.

This is a physics forum. It is for people who take nothing for granted only hard evidence makes makes our day. we discuss and debate how nature works endlessly, using the most brain draining art of science. People like Dr Tegmark and many others make careers from being most rational. True at this point we do not have a slam dunk but but compare us to other solutions that make very little sense. Faith is for the 99.99 % of religious like people who do not have the means to explain and for people who blieve that there is something out there but do not know what it is, or just think that it must be SOMETHING REALLY FANTASTIC.

[disregardthat]

This is a physics forum. It is for people who take nothing for granted only hard evidence makes makes our day. we discuss and debate how nature works endlessly, using the most brain draining art of science. People like Dr Tegmark and many others make careers from being most rational. True at this point we do not have a slam dunk but but compare us to other solutions that make very little sense. Faith is for the 99.99 % of religious like people who do not have the means to explain and for people who blieve that there is something out there but do not know what it is, or just think that it must be SOMETHING REALLY FANTASTIC.

I profoundly disagree with your notion of faith, but it is not the subject here. It seems to me that you have misunderstood the concept of faith. Also, I do not see the relevance of your comment.

[qsa]

I profoundly disagree with your notion of faith, but it is not the subject here. It seems to me that you have misunderstood the concept of faith. Also, I do not see the relevance of your comment.

You used the word faith. I understood it to mean that our colclusion that reality is nothing but a mathematical structure is a pure faith i.e. no hard evidence only gut feeling. Again, I claim that we reached this conclusion only after evaluating ALL hard evidences including the super tight relation between math and the description of reality. We do use some gut feeling, but unlike others it is not the only thing we go by. I did not mean to use the word Faith to make a religious/anti-religious war or to put any "faithfull" down, though.

[sidestreet]

Having read through the thread, apologies if I missed anyone making this point before.

We evolved to perceive things but it ain’t necessarily so.

When Kirk is beamed-up by Scotty, how does the transporter know exactly where the ground stops and Kirk starts? Is the dirt on his boots part of Kirk? How about the clothes on his back, the air in his lungs or the pimple on his nose?

A thing doesn’t seem to exist as such unless we define it to be a thing, and often our definitions are not rigorous.

Could an alien exist that doesn't perceive the world as made up of things? If that alien uses maths, would it see countable numbers as technical devices, or be led by them to exactly the same ideas of things as us?

As the concept of nothing arguably depends directly on the concept of something, the OP might be meaningless to the alien.

[yoda jedi]

You used the word faith. I understood it to mean that our colclusion that reality is nothing but a mathematical structure is a pure faith i.e. no hard evidence only gut feeling. Again, I claim that we reached this conclusion only after evaluating ALL hard evidences including the super tight relation between math and the description of reality. We do use some gut feeling, but unlike others it is not the only thing we go by. I did not mean to use the word Faith to make a religious/anti-religious war or to put any "faithfull" down, though.

Nominalism.

[imiyakawa]

The systems approach would require two axes to map everything here. So it does get complicated.

One axis would be that of developed scale. Worlds as they become. And that is realms where there are local components in interaction with global principles. Or equivalently, we could also use some other familiar dichotomies that mean the same thing. So substance~form, particulars~universals, atom~void, initial conditions~boundary conditions. You can see how all are ways of talking about something that is maximally located and component-like - stuff you can freely add together. Then matched with complementary things which are maximally global and act as general constraints.

Then having divided our description of how things end up, we need a second orthogonal axis to talk about the process or history of development itself. Which is the journey from the vaguely possible to the crisply produced. This could be called other things, like a developmental axis that runs from simplicity to complexity. But there are reasons why this is not very good.

So I was talking about the synchronic view - a slice across a system at a certain late stage of its development. That is when we will find that all things seem strongly divided towards local and global limits - what could be called the dichotomy of components~principles. Or better yet, substance~form. Or best of all, because now we are getting properly mathematical, local~global, a scale distinction.

And you would be right if you are pointing out that in separating off the description of development, I would be re-introducing a linear or time-like aspect of some sort. The path from the vague to the crisp, from potential to developed, would seem to be a one way trip. There would be an arrow of progression.

So yes, there is now a story of how we would step backwards. Except it would be stepping back towards something called vague potential rather than a journey in the usual notion of time.

Each step backwards would not take you towards either the fundamentally small, nor the fundamentally large. Rather, it would become increasingly difficult to distinguish these two possibilities.

You just made so much sense it's not even funny. Your model perfectly describes our observations of the physical universe thus far (as we move back, bosons/fermions converge as the same thing ~big bang, perfectly represents entropy tendencies).

However, do you think this can be used as a support of the vagueness theory of pre-bigbang/all-reality conditions? What I mean is, isn't this model limited in that, yes, it perfectly describes our physical universe and its property of vagueness, but can we really use it to help answer the OPs question? I'll say that in another way: do we agree that this model is only applicable to pre-big bang conditions if, as you stated, the multiverse (if it exists) has some criterion in its creation of subset universes, or if the multiverse doesn't exist, entropy/vagueness(indeterminacy) and other properties of our universe can be shown to be applicable to whatever the fundamental reality is?

[apeiron]

I'll say that in another way: do we agree that this model is only applicable to pre-big bang conditions if, as you stated, the multiverse (if it exists) has some criterion in its creation of subset universes, or if the multiverse doesn't exist, entropy/vagueness(indeterminacy) and other properties of our universe can be shown to be applicable to whatever the fundamental reality is?

Extrapolating from the logical position I describe, there would most likely not be a multiverse type state. Nor inflation I think.

Again, vagueness would be a state of maximal symmetry. So it would be in some sense infinite dimensional. It would be defined by the entire ensemble of possible spacetime arrangements and curvatures - as vaguely existent possibility. A multiverse is already just a crisp "something" in being of some certain ordered subset of dimensionality and evolving in some coherent time direction.

Now to make this view work, there would have to be something special about three spatial dimensions. Somehow this must prove to be the most stable self-organising outcome when the ultimate symmety of pre-bang vagueness got broke.

So vagueness would be a sea of fluctuations giving fleeting expression perhaps to every kind of dimensional arrangement, but just 3D was the one "direction" which could grow away and establish itself (as a cooling, expanding, crisply existent void). All dimensional arrangements might be explored, but only one could win the race to be the most efficient solution.

You would not need inflation in this kind of view because the universe would be "self-flattening". 3D would exist because it was an equilibrium balance, and so would not need deus ex machina mechanisms to create a fine-tuned balance.

There are reasons I can think of why three dimensions would be the minimal configuration (not two, one or none; nor four, five or greater). But that would be my speculation.

The general idea of vagueness dividing is, as I say, an ancient idea of genesis and so perfectly acceptable as philosophy. How it may apply to modern cosmology is the question I find most interesting.

[baywax]

Let me repeat.

"Why something rather than nothing?"

Because nothing does not exist.

[yoda jedi]

Let me repeat.

"Why something rather than nothing?"

Because nothing does not exist.

right, cos
nothing is no existence......

[imiyakawa]

Maybe we need to look at the OPs proposition in another way.


ASSUMPTION/AXIOM: Only nothing can come from nothing.

REASONING: We obviously must assign a probability to what's observed given this axiom: P(existence = 0;nothingness) = 0 and P(there's something in existence) = 1, and thus, the proposition of there being "no state of affairs" is an observed impossibility, as any assigning of a probability of P(existence = 0) > 0 is predicated on being outside of existence; and as this is impossible, any assigning of probabilities must adhere to what's observed about reality,

P(existence = 0) = 0.


∴ the question of why or how is deficient, as both these questions assume a P(existence = 0) > 0, which, given the aforestated axiom is true, has been reasoned to be impossible.

why and how only become relevant if something can come from nothing.


^^ The above may be perceived as me being pedantic, as it seems I've made a very simple notion into a complex attempted proofing, but hey that's how it came out.

[imiyakawa]

Extrapolating from the logical position I describe, there would most likely not be a multiverse type state. Nor inflation I think.

Again, vagueness would be a state of maximal symmetry. So it would be in some sense infinite dimensional. It would be defined by the entire ensemble of possible spacetime arrangements and curvatures - as vaguely existent possibility. A multiverse is already just a crisp "something" in being of some certain ordered subset of dimensionality and evolving in some coherent time direction.

Now to make this view work, there would have to be something special about three spatial dimensions. Somehow this must prove to be the most stable self-organising outcome when the ultimate symmety of pre-bang vagueness got broke.

So vagueness would be a sea of fluctuations giving fleeting expression perhaps to every kind of dimensional arrangement, but just 3D was the one "direction" which could grow away and establish itself (as a cooling, expanding, crisply existent void). All dimensional arrangements might be explored, but only one could win the race to be the most efficient solution.

You would not need inflation in this kind of view because the universe would be "self-flattening". 3D would exist because it was an equilibrium balance, and so would not need deus ex machina mechanisms to create a fine-tuned balance.

There are reasons I can think of why three dimensions would be the minimal configuration (not two, one or none; nor four, five or greater). But that would be my speculation.

The general idea of vagueness dividing is, as I say, an ancient idea of genesis and so perfectly acceptable as philosophy. How it may apply to modern cosmology is the question I find most interesting.

How do we know that there's something important (or more accurately, efficient) about 3D in the process of symmetry breaking as you stated. For example, this stance (that it's preffered/efficient over other numbers of dimensions) isn't needed if either an infinite or a ridiculous magnitude of universes existes, as perhaps it's again the case of if these conditions (3D) weren't around, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

[apeiron]

How do we know that there's something important (or more accurately, efficient) about 3D in the process of symmetry breaking as you stated. For example, this stance (that it's preffered/efficient over other numbers of dimensions) isn't needed if either an infinite or a ridiculous magnitude of universes existes, as perhaps it's again the case of if these conditions (3D) weren't around, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

This is the usual anthropic question. And as you suggested above, a bayesian approach seems justifiable in the absence of anything better.

So we find that we exist (or persist) and so non-existence, an absolute lack of structure (or non-persistence, an absolute lack of process) is not an option.

And if there ever "was" just nothing (even a lack of time) then why would that have "changed". How could a nothing undergo a process of development?

By the same token, we find ourselves in a crisply 3D spatial realm. And we can imagine that as a choice from a potential infinity of dimensional arrangements.

Either this is just an immense fluke, or a telling fact.

A theory that explained why there is something special and self-selecting about 3D would be a much more satisfying one that a theory which just says 'sh** happens'. Or rather, everything exists and the only thing special about our universe is that it supports humans who want to ask the question.

Now I want to focus on the class of theories that seem to have the best of everything. I want a believable model of initial conditions (a vagueness - a potential that has the best features of both the conventional 'nothingness' and 'everythingness" ontologies).

And also one that says our particular reality "had to be". So it was the only solution, the only direction in which a vagueness could develop. This avoids landscapes and anthropic outcomes. Or rather, it is strong anthropism at the physical level (the existence of humans could still be just one of those things).

There are approaches of the kind I'm talking about. I've mentioned Baez's Octonion speculations before as a guiding idea.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/octonions/

[imiyakawa]

Thanks for the reply. When you state that you wish to have a theory that purports suitable potential initial conditions upon which our universe must have developed out of vagueness (as an alternative to the cop out of infinite worlds exist and this is just one of them), are you just talking about the dimensionality of this universe (being 3D) as the must-ness that evolved from vagueness or do you have other things in mind that could be incorporated into this theory.

(for those reading that don't understand the terminology of vagueness, refer to dichotomist.com)

[apeiron]

Thanks for the reply. When you state that you wish to have a theory that purports suitable potential initial conditions upon which our universe must have developed out of vagueness (as an alternative to the cop out of infinite worlds exist and this is just one of them), are you just talking about the dimensionality of this universe (being 3D) as the must-ness that evolved from vagueness or do you have other things in mind that could be incorporated into this theory.


Real success would be getting the standard model of particles out it, plus all the constants, plus a resolution of the relationship between QM and GR. :tongue:

But it would all be connected to the issue of dimensionality as local knots in spacetime geometry would be what particles are made out of (presuming a constraints-based, soliton/condensed matter physics approach in the spirit of Volovik, Wen, etc).

I do have some particular thoughts about why 3D is a self-stable minima. The answer seems in fact quite obvious if you ask the question what is the fewest number of dimensions that will remain if essentially a system of constraints is trying to constrain all dimensionality (local degrees of freedom) out of existence.

You can find the answer in network theory for example. Wolfram talked about it in that big fat book of his.

http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-476

[Einbeermug]

Let me repeat.

"Why something rather than nothing?"

Because nothing does not exist.

Nothing can be 'that which does not exist' if you care to define it that way. Unfortunately anyone can assign semantical properties to the term nothing based upon their own personal preference.

What would you call 'that which neither does NOR DOES NOT exist'?

And how do you define 'exist'?

[apeiron]

What would you call 'that which neither does NOR DOES NOT exist'?
= vagueness
:frown:


And how do you define 'exist'? = 'persist'

[Einbeermug]

= vagueness
:frown:

IF existence was 'created' by a singularity or some other undiscovered process then the cosmos was changed from a state of non-existence to a state of existence and there must have been a 'between state' in which it was in neither and/or both.

= 'persist'
Personally I would qualify 'existence' based on three of its most basic attributes:
1) Qualitative (what it is, its properties and attributes)
2) Quantitative (size/volume)
3) Spatial (location and configuration relarive to itself and its environs)

[GeorgCantor]

Why something rather than nothing?



If i don't make assumptions, the question transforms into - "Why our observations rather than no observations?"

Has somebody looked up 'Bolzmann Brain' theory? It looks to me like a variant of solipsism, though it makes the assumption that a space-like medium, like the ground state of the field, exists that in time has the capacity to produce all sorts of events through quantum fluctuations.

The point is - our senses are not very trustworthy as to what reality is, and therefore any (mental) state that is dependent on our senses should at the very least be carefully examined and rigorously tested to determine if it is in fact "reality". Since we never experience directly this reality and since most philosophers are skeptics(and in personal plan i do sometimes have trouble telling if i am in a sleep or awake), suppose i decide to not make the assumption that my senses and perceptions are true. Am i only left with the choice between Bolzmann Brain and solipsism?

[Einbeermug]

If i don't make assumptions, the question transforms into - "Why our observations rather than no observations?"

Has somebody looked up 'Bolzmann Brain' theory? It looks to me like a variant of solipsism, though it makes the assumption that a space-like medium, like the ground state of the field, exists that in time has the capacity to produce all sorts of events through quantum fluctuations.

The point is - our senses are not very trustworthy as to what reality is, and therefore any (mental) state that is dependent on our senses should at the very least be carefully examined and rigorously tested to determine if it is in fact "reality". Since we never experience directly this reality and since most philosophers are skeptics(and in personal plan i do sometimes have trouble telling if i am in a sleep or awake), suppose i decide to not make the assumption that my senses and perceptions are true. Am i only left with the choice between Bolzmann Brain and solipsism?
Without fundamental axioms there is no science...or phililosophy...or any further episodes of 'South Park'.

[apeiron]

Has somebody looked up 'Bolzmann Brain' theory?

The Boltzmann brain idea only assigns probabilities to the appearance via fluctuation of the substance of the universe, not its forms - its laws, its spacetime, its other kinds of downwards acting organisation and constraint.

Of course, a solipsistically-inclined materialist could insist that substance (in the form(!) of information for example) is all that exists and any thoughts this brain might have about formal cause (as part of a wider world and its well-behaved regularities) are some weird private delusion.

[GeorgCantor]

Without fundamental axioms there is no science...or phililosophy...or any further episodes of 'South Park'.



If you believe this, you must be of the opinion that science will never deliver truths and a whole lot of very important and possibly the most interesting questions of all will never be answered.

Edit: What fundamental axioms and assumptions do you think underlie the philosophical thesis of solipsism?

[GeorgCantor]

The Boltzmann brain idea only assigns probabilities to the appearance via fluctuation of the substance of the universe, not its forms - its laws, its spacetime, its other kinds of downwards acting organisation and constraint.



Bolzmann brain theory says that in an eternal universe with quantum fluctuations, the probability for anything to occur is exactly 1. Including the mental state that I consider to be the outside world. Given infinity, all sorts of weird stuff become not only possible, but inevitable.

[Einbeermug]

If you believe this, you must be of the opinion that science will never deliver truths and a whole lot of very important and possibly the most interesting questions of all will never be answered.

Edit: What fundamental axioms and assumptions do you think underlie the philosophical thesis of solipsism?
Science is merely a form of communication - the encoding of ideas into formulae and language. All knowledge originates within. It can be coaxed into consciousness by interpreting the encoding of others, but all knowledge is fundamentally intuitive...an inate recognition of truth.

[apeiron]

Given infinity, all sorts of weird stuff become not only possible, but inevitable.

Yes, precisely. Given infinity. But philosophically, why would we be granting that in a thread like this?

You are just restating atomism. There is the local substance and then - the void. But the systems approach is about explaining the existence (persistence) of the void as well. And instead of the void being a-causal at in atomism (a passive backdrop), it is instead the global scale which exerts constraints.

[qsa]

Bolzmann brain theory says that in an eternal universe with quantum fluctuations, the probability for anything to occur is exactly 1. Including the mental state that I consider to be the outside world. Given infinity, all sorts of weird stuff become not only possible, but inevitable.


Philosophy is good. Physics with the right philosophy is the best. To get the right physics and philosophy there must be a constructive iterative process to align both just right, not just any physics and philosophy. Otherwise, you go on a wild goose chase. Reality as a matter of fact is simple and that’s why even with our limited intelligence we have been able to nearly nail it. Reality looks like magic, but just like magic when you get to know how Houdini uses lasers (or whatever) then all the mystery is gone.
There has been great exaggeration as to what random can produce. In QM a speck of sand will take it 10^23 years to move centimeters in the particle in a box problem. My own simulation which reproduces all of the known physics and then some, I don’t see any magic, just boring simple processes revolve around random numbers, and that is all. Actually, known physics is already telling us that, it is just that some of the hard pieces of the puzzle are still missing, and that is why it is looking harder than it actually is.

[GeorgCantor]

Philosophy is good. Physics with the right philosophy is the best. To get the right physics and philosophy there must be a constructive iterative process to align both just right, not just any physics and philosophy. Otherwise, you go on a wild goose chase. Reality as a matter of fact is simple and that’s why even with our limited intelligence we have been able to nearly nail it. Reality looks like magic, but just like magic when you get to know how Houdini uses lasers (or whatever) then all the mystery is gone.
There has been great exaggeration as to what random can produce. In QM a speck of sand will take it 10^23 years to move centimeters in the particle in a box problem. My own simulation which reproduces all of the known physics and then some, I don’t see any magic, just boring simple processes revolve around random numbers, and that is all. Actually, known physics is already telling us that, it is just that some of the hard pieces of the puzzle are still missing, and that is why it is looking harder than it actually is.



The only things remaining for you to 'nail' are time, space, consciousness, free will, matter(which is really a matter of interpretation) and life(the emergent property of self-organizing). When you take all of these into account, one gets to wonder what it is that you have actually nailed.

[qsa]

The only things remaining for you to 'nail' are time, space, consciousness, free will, matter(which is really a matter of interpretation) and life(the emergent property of self-organizing). When you take all of these into account, one gets to wonder what it is that you have actually nailed.

We have been able to almost nail space, time and matter and they are constructed out of random numbers that represent space and matter. As for time, it does not exist as such; it is a secondary effect to a constant interaction of matter (made of vacuum energy, itself made of random numbers) which produces change that we call time.
As for biology, it is a tedious problem but not as fundamental as above. Both issues are connected in a very nice way. for example with present theories we are able to simulate no more than few thousands atoms but with a more fundamental theory we should be able to really simulate how life began, although research is very advanced already in that field.
I agree that the consciousness and free will are both contentious issues, they sit one level above biology but I don’t think they are intractable. They just have to wait a bit longer until the others are fully resolved. I am not sure of what the consensus among scientist on the issue but I know that a lot of them consider it to be a pure biology issue. I read few weeks back in one of the science magazines that a 10 million grant has been won to construct a working brain (of the order of a mouse) in ten years!

[yoda jedi]

because is the absolute vacuum.......

[GeorgCantor]

We have been able to almost nail space, time and matter and they are constructed out of random numbers that represent space and matter.


Random? Numbers?

As for time, it does not exist as such; it is a secondary effect to a constant interaction of matter (made of vacuum energy, itself made of random numbers) which produces change that we call time.


What do you mean by 'random'? Are the laws that govern what you call 'matter arising from vacuum energy' random? I don't think your philosophy can be backed up by facts, much less pronounce 'we have almost nailed time'.

As for biology, it is a tedious problem but not as fundamental as above. Both issues are connected in a very nice way. for example with present theories we are able to simulate no more than few thousands atoms but with a more fundamental theory we should be able to really simulate how life began, although research is very advanced already in that field.


In other words, we may nail it in the future. I agree.



I agree at the consciousness and free will are both contentious issues, they sit one level above biology but I don’t think they are intractable. They just have to wait a bit longer until the others are fully resolved. I am not sure of what the consensus among scientist on the issue but I know that a lot of them consider it to be a pure biology issue. I read few weeks back in one of the science magazines that a 10 million grant has been won to construct a working brain (of the order of a mouse) in ten years!


It's probably as they say - a biology issue, but they have nowhere near nailed neither free will nor consciousness. How matter acquires the ability to have mental states and observe itself may never be understood. It's hard to say if it's a case of me being too skeptical or if we are simply in an early stage in our development.

[qsa]

Random? Numbers?




What do you mean by 'random'? Are the laws that govern what you call 'matter arising from vacuum energy' random? I don't think your philosophy can be backed up by facts, much less pronounce 'we have almost nailed time'..

These listing is just a tip of the iceberg but they give you good idea how random works in physics. Not to mention my own http://www.qsa.netne.net

Equivalence of the Klein-Gordon random field and the complex Klein-Gordon quantum field
EPL 87 (2009) 31002; preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1263

The difference between a Klein-Gordon random field and the complex Klein-Gordon quantum field is characterized, explicitly comparing the rôles played by negative frequency modes of test functions in creation and annihilation operator presentation


Lie Fields revisited
J. Math. Phys. 48, 122302(2007); preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3420

A class of interacting classical random fields is constructed using deformed ⋆-algebras of creation and annihilation operators. The fields constructed are classical random field versions of “Lie fields”. A vacuum vector is used to construct linear forms over the algebras, which are conjectured to be states over the algebras. Assuming this conjecture is true, the fields constructed are “quantum random fields” in the sense that they have Poincaré invariant vacua with a fluctuation scale determined by Planck's constant. A nonlocal particle interpretation of the formalism is shown to be the same as a particle interpretation of a quantum field theory.
s of the two theories. The random field and the complex quantum field can both be constructed from the same creation and annihilation operator algebra, making them equivalent in that sense.

Bell inequalities for random fields
J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39 (2006) 7441-7455; preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0403692

The assumptions required for the derivation of Bell inequalities are not satisfied for random field models in which there are any thermal or quantum fluctuations, in contrast to the general satisfaction of the assumptions for classical two point particle models. Random field models that explicitly include the effects of quantum fluctuations on measurement can be used to describe experiments that violate Bell inequalities.

[apeiron]

These listing is just a tip of the iceberg but they give you good idea how random works in physics. Not to mention my own http://www.qsa.netne.net


Essential reading about the modelling of "random processes".....

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.3507v1.pdf

It shows how the small scale processes can be random or determined and yet the same statistical outcome is seen.

It is a systems approach of course, involving the interaction of construction and constraint to create a self-organised result.

[flashprogram]

My 2 cents:

If we assume that the fundamental nature is information, we could conceivably see that just as we can take truths and logic to be atemporal, the rules and states of a simulation(the mere idea, it does not have to be 'run' either by some computer or pencil and paper... merely the various states and the relationship between them under some rule simply being as an idea.), the very existence of the various states of the universe could also be seen as atemporal.

As for how things like time, space would come out of this. When we see something like the brain, we observe that merely the relationships that occur between some elements processing information, the neural connections and related activity, is enough to generate consciousness as a by product. If consciousness can arise out of mere relationships in the processing of information, it is not too much a leap to assume that the same could hold for things like time and space and the entire physical world.

We know that in a computer the numbers representing a state in a simulation, are not special in any way, they're just numbers and as such exist independent of the simulation. The rules can be seen as ways of relating one state to another state, and such relationship also exist independently and we could consider them atemporal. If we take this, we see that the numbers representing the various states of a simulation indistinguishable from the real world can exist atemporally. The relationship or rules for transitioning between said numbers can conceivably be viewed as being atemporal too. Thus the fact that the mere idea of the simulation and of its various states exists atemporally, begs the question is this world not but one of the many simulations that have always existed?

As for deeper causes, I believe when we see something like the NOR and NAND logic gates being able to be used to develop all the other ones, there's something interesting there. Could something similar be done to provide a fundamental reason for the existence of information? Say developing the negation of something, or of two opposites in some form of logic leading inevitably to the existence of said things as concepts? Or do we have to take the existence of concepts, truths, ideas as being eternal or atemporal for granted?

PS

Now the assumption above of the simulation argument, assumes that the sequence of numbers, say the integers being infinite, is something that is not created nor dependent on physical reality or time. Some people take this to be true, that truths, numbers, etc are atemporal or eternal with no beginning or end, they're not created but discovered. By taking this to be so and merely extending this idea, we can see that the same is the case for the set of all possible simulations, as the finite states, represented by numbers relating to each other by the use of some rule, would be part of the infinite sequence of numbers(for example integers).

That is if we assume that something like the infinte sequence of integers exists without depending on time, that is these are eternal and are discovered not created, we automatically include all possible simulation states along for the ride.

[apeiron]

As for deeper causes, I believe when we see something like the NOR and NAND logic gates being able to be used to develop all the other ones, there's something interesting there. Could something similar be done to provide a fundamental reason for the existence of information? Say developing the negation of something, or of two opposites in some form of logic leading inevitably to the existence of said things as concepts?

You mean, like a dichotomy or something? :rofl:

Information theory is based on the dichotomy of signal~noise. And signal does not just "exist". It is actively created by the process that finds it meaningful (the same process that is busy discarding/suppressing the "negative other" of the noise).

Of course, information has come to be treated as the fundamental grain of existence and so inspired a widespread belief among computer geeks that reality could be just a very large simulation.

Perhaps that belief is reaching a point among enough people that we can officially proclaim it as one of the world's newest religions?

[flashprogram]

You mean, like a dichotomy or something? :rofl:

Information theory is based on the dichotomy of signal~noise. And signal does not just "exist". It is actively created by the process that finds it meaningful (the same process that is busy discarding/suppressing the "negative other" of the noise).

Of course, information has come to be treated as the fundamental grain of existence and so inspired a widespread belief among computer geeks that reality could be just a very large simulation.

Perhaps that belief is reaching a point among enough people that we can officially proclaim it as one of the world's newest religions?

The word 'information' within information theory does have some specific uses. But in general use, things that are considered abstract, such as ideas or numbers can be considered information. I do not need to transmit an infinite list of numbers to convey the integer set to you. We use symbols to represent things that may or may not be finite in extent.

When I say that information exists, I mean things like truths and numbers(if the use of the word 'information' causes any conflict, just replace it by the statement truths, numbers, etc). Do these things not exist because there is noise in our methods of transmiting knowledge about them? That doesn't seem to be right, many are those who believe that mathematicians discover eternal truths, and do not create them.


1.) That the state of a particular simulation as represented in the memory of a computer corresponds to a number that is part of the set of possible numbers is a fact.

2.) That said number is related to another number through a series of rules that allow transition from one state to another, is a fact.

3.)IF we assume that the numbers exist, the relationships between them exist also(one is larger or smaller than the other, one might be a power of the other, one might between two other numbers, etc), so as the rules describe these relationships they too exist as abstract truths.

Now all we're left with is whether abstract truths are dependent on concrete reality, and somehow have a beginning(say proven theorems may at one point in the past have actually been false, but some special sauce has made them correct for now...), or whether they are eternal and independent of any physical implementation or discovery. The latter seems more plausible.

[GeorgCantor]

Perhaps that belief is reaching a point among enough people that we can officially proclaim it as one of the world's newest religions?


What is it that you believe quantum fields are made of?

Nothing in nature has colour, beauty, solidity, even precise physical dimensions and fixed properties like mass, length, speed and energy. What do you make of this?

What do you make of an electron that tunnels thorough a classically forbidden zone?

[yoda jedi]

You mean, like a dichotomy or something? :rofl:

Information theory is based on the dichotomy of signal~noise. And signal does not just "exist". It is actively created by the process that finds it meaningful (the same process that is busy discarding/suppressing the "negative other" of the noise).

Of course, information has come to be treated as the fundamental grain of existence and so inspired a widespread belief among computer geeks that reality could be just a very large simulation.

Perhaps that belief is reaching a point among enough people that we can officially proclaim it as one of the world's newest religions?

indeed !

....laughs.....

[apeiron]

What is it that you believe quantum fields are made of?

Nothing in nature has colour, beauty, solidity, even precise physical dimensions and fixed properties like mass, length, speed and energy. What do you make of this?

What do you make of an electron that tunnels thorough a classically forbidden zone?

How does that relate to information theory? I don't see the connection.

But anyway, I believe that quantum fields are vague potential. They then develop into crisply dichotomised classical states via decoherence. A photon exchange was seen to occur crisply here, and equally crisply not here, not here, nor even over here. (So signal~noise in that one locale is chosen, all the other a priori equally-likely locales discarded).

Just because classical reality is not the complete story, that does not make QM the complete story. Instead, what we want to do is see how they are complementary aspects of the one larger story.

Just asking the question of "what could be the prime mover" is a very classical phrasing of causality, by the way. As I say, I prefer to break up this mystery by putting all the potential in the beginning (vagueness, QM vagueness even). Then putting all the teleological purpose in the future (classical reality exists to decohere quantum vagueness, take its raw unformed potential and collapse it to crisply taken history).

Uncertainty certainly exists in nature, but it is severely constrained (by the classical structure of the universe). Properties like mass, length, speed and energy are 99.99...% fixed on the whole. The only way to observe QM fuzziness or vagueness is to isolate some aspect of the universe. To hold back the weight of classical constraint that wants to decohere everything it touches.

That is why QM experiments need chilled equipment, isolation from interference, all sorts of artificial stuff. The world wants to be as classical as possible.

QM is not the fundamental stuff of reality (and so the classical realm some kind of delusion). QM is just the vague stuff out of which crisp reality arises.

[qsa]

Essential reading about the modelling of "random processes".....

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.3507v1.pdf

It shows how the small scale processes can be random or determined and yet the same statistical outcome is seen.

It is a systems approach of course, involving the interaction of construction and constraint to create a self-organised result.

Thanks for the reference. My favourite one is a book on information theory. When I go through it I see my theory in it in a real direct way. Moreover, I have been reading about running constants, scale free, scale invariant, fractal like, Ising model, QCD lattice, discrete space, critical temperature, BEC, network theory.... etc. and my head would spin and could only understand little. One day as I was trying to understand at what scale the hydrogen atom is in my model, then it was all clear I was dealing with the same issues as above, wow. Of course all these issues and the “electromagnetic mass” theory( the origin of E=mc^2) are related. I have learned a lot, but still I am fighting hard with my model.

In this model, nature comes about in such an automatic way. Pick a line and throw two random numbers. One denotes the position and the other length of pieces of lines, then you get a free particle which all of QM and QFT books have the opening in it. The particle exists in all space with the same probability. Next add constraint with the simplest expression and you get your particle in a box in 1D. Add the same constraint for the second axis just after the first one; you get the 2D picture (you can go to N). Also, the constraints splits the throws into two set of lines, one represent the momentum energy (these lines are confined to inside of the particle) and the second, get ready, represent mass and the lines can go to the end of the universe and that is how gravity gets created, that is when these lines interact with other lines of other particles (with a very simple expression again amounting to logic)! When particles come close and touch each other they interact with the internal lines and that is your get the other forces i.e. EM.

I am not sure if there is any other way to design the universe differet than above. In that sense it seems there was no choice!

[qsa]

One more thing I might add. while I have been toying with the Idea that the universe is made of numbers for two years (lets say became convinced ), long time ago I noticed something strange when I looked at the 2D problem for particle in a box. It looked like somebody has thrown a line and constrained it. I tried something at that time and did not see any results. It is only recently that I have finally made the connection with a theory that was investigated in 1777(nice number). It is called the Buffen problem. It is funny, this theory turns out to be the bases of all reality. originally the auther wanted to calculate PI by throwing a needle randomly between two lines. Please be sure to read the Remarks in the link below you will be amazed I grantee it.

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/fta/Buffon/buffon9.shtml

[apeiron]

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/fta/Buffon/buffon9.shtml

This is why I suggested Frank's paper. It talks about why random local processes - like tossing the needle - are indistinguishable from an aggregation of deterministic local processes.

You see the same story with fractals. The same patterns can be generated using random processes or deterministic iterative equations.

There is something important going here that could be related to physical theory - the existence of local symmetries (as in gauge symmetries of particle physics) within the self-organising contexts of global constraints (as in soliton models of particles).

But I don't see random numbers as being the key. Rather it is the deeper principles of symmetries and symmetry-breaking.

[baywax]

abstract truths are dependent on concrete reality,

An event (like an object) generates a stimulus which is then received by neuronal receptors which is then interpreted as information about the event. What comes first? The stimulus or the information?

To say that numbers are eternal and atemporal is incorrect since a number is an assigned description of a phenomenon like an event. The assignment is performed by the brain. When the brain discontinues in its very temporal way... the number also discontinues. But the event may or may not continue indefinitely.

So I'd have to say that the event is the primary function. It is the driver of the process. The information about the event is generated by the stimulus of the event and may not, in any way, properly describe the event... except to the satisfaction of the observer... re: brain.

[GeorgCantor]

How does that relate to information theory? I don't see the connection.



It's information that you are perceiving as the classical macro world. The question is whether the 'filter' and interpreter found inside one's brain is objectifying the incoming data correctly 1:1. Anyone can see that how we view the macro world is also part of how we are structured, dependent on frames of reference, eyes' resolution, etc. Essentially, what we use for measurement/observation is influencing how we interpret the outside world.

But anyway, I believe that quantum fields are vague potential. They then develop into crisply dichotomised classical states via decoherence.


Doesn't this make your 'world' just as abstract and dependent on your perception as i implied in my previous post?


A photon exchange was seen to occur crisply here, and equally crisply not here, not here, nor even over here. (So signal~noise in that one locale is chosen, all the other a priori equally-likely locales discarded).

Just because classical reality is not the complete story, that does not make QM the complete story. Instead, what we want to do is see how they are complementary aspects of the one larger story.

Just asking the question of "what could be the prime mover" is a very classical phrasing of causality, by the way. As I say, I prefer to break up this mystery by putting all the potential in the beginning (vagueness, QM vagueness even). Then putting all the teleological purpose in the future (classical reality exists to decohere quantum vagueness, take its raw unformed potential and collapse it to crisply taken history).

Uncertainty certainly exists in nature, but it is severely constrained (by the classical structure of the universe). Properties like mass, length, speed and energy are 99.99...% fixed on the whole. The only way to observe QM fuzziness or vagueness is to isolate some aspect of the universe. To hold back the weight of classical constraint that wants to decohere everything it touches.

That is why QM experiments need chilled equipment, isolation from interference, all sorts of artificial stuff. The world wants to be as classical as possible.

QM is not the fundamental stuff of reality (and so the classical realm some kind of delusion). QM is just the vague stuff out of which crisp reality arises.




OK, let me put the question differently, as it seems i wasn't able to get my message across last time - what is the something found in the OP? Potential?

Without agreement over what a 'something' is, this discussion isn't going anywhere. And as far as i have been able research it, those who are working on a TOE don't know either. How would the proposed strings/loops create exactly the objects i see in front of me and the spacetime around them?

We have to agree first what a something is, do you agree? And everyone in the physics community seems to have a different interpretation on this issue, so it becomes as much a religion as the suggestion that reality might be made out of math, information or be simulated.

How is your belief that abstract potentials constrained by global laws are creating the netbook on my desk different than the 'religion' you accused some of the members here?

[apeiron]

How is your belief that abstract potentials constrained by global laws are creating the netbook on my desk different than the 'religion' you accused some of the members here?

It is not about beliefs but about models. So I propose a particular modelling approach in rivalry to other modelling approaches. Religion would instead be about belief, revelation and other such non-modelling concepts.

So I'm afraid we are not even on the same page here.

[GeorgCantor]

It is not about beliefs but about models. So I propose a particular modelling approach in rivalry to other modelling approaches. Religion would instead be about belief, revelation and other such non-modelling concepts.

So I'm afraid we are not even on the same page here.



It's about beliefs that an untestable model is true. Unless we found evidence what a 'something' really is(i.e. one of the interpretations won over the others, or a TOE emerges somehow within our lifetime), any model is simply a proposition. It can be wrong or right, but there is no way to confirm it at this time. You can ascribe the 'religion' label to any interpretation of qm, including yours that seems to be based around decoherence.

The 'something' needs to be precisely defined first, then it might be possible to discuss and find a solution to the OP "why something rather than nothing".

[apeiron]

It's about beliefs that an untestable model is true. Unless we found evidence what a 'something' really is(i.e. one of the interpretations won over the others, or a TOE emerges somehow within our lifetime), any model is simply a proposition. It can be wrong or right, but there is no way to confirm it at this time. You can ascribe the 'religion' label to any interpretation of qm, including yours that seems to be based around decoherence.

The 'something' needs to be precisely defined first, then it might be possible to discuss and find a solution to the OP "why something rather than nothing".

No, models are tied to measurements - to predictions. They also serve purposes. So the degree to which they work is an issue of pragmatics not ontology.

We don't need to know what "really is" to have something we feel "really works".

Interpretations of QM are of course strictly speaking superflous to the model itself. But to make better models, we would need interpretations that point in the direction of some more comprehensive model (with a new level of measurement to match).

You could call the discussion of interpretations meta-physics - the scoping out of the next step. It would only be a religion if we made these further choices as a matter of unsupported belief or divine authority.

[GeorgCantor]

No, models are tied to measurements - to predictions. They also serve purposes. So the degree to which they work is an issue of pragmatics not ontology.


It's the opposite, as your model seems to claim to describe all reality which would be an issue of ontology. We cannot comment on why there is something rather than nothing wthout some kind of ontology at hand.

If your proposed model only addressed certain narrow aspects of reality, without making general claims how everything works together, then yes, you could say your model has something worthwhile to say that could hint at something, without straying into religion/philosophy territories.


We don't need to know what "really is" to have something we feel "really works".


True, but this is not enough to adderess the OP question. We need a kind of knowledge that simply isn't there at all.



Interpretations of QM are of course strictly speaking superflous to the model itself. But to make better models, we would need interpretations that point in the direction of some more comprehensive model (with a new level of measurement to match).

You could call the discussion of interpretations meta-physics - the scoping out of the next step. It would only be a religion if we made these further choices as a matter of unsupported belief or divine authority.

You were the one who suggested that the proposition that mathematics could be at the basis of all reality was a 'religous movement'. I think your model, and any other for that matter, is currently in exactly the same boat. Let's not turn this into - 'my untestable proposition is better than yours because it seems to make more intuitive sense to me'.

[flashprogram]

An event (like an object) generates a stimulus which is then received by neuronal receptors which is then interpreted as information about the event. What comes first? The stimulus or the information?

To say that numbers are eternal and atemporal is incorrect since a number is an assigned description of a phenomenon like an event. The assignment is performed by the brain. When the brain discontinues in its very temporal way... the number also discontinues. But the event may or may not continue indefinitely.

So I'd have to say that the event is the primary function. It is the driver of the process. The information about the event is generated by the stimulus of the event and may not, in any way, properly describe the event... except to the satisfaction of the observer... re: brain.

Number corresponds to both a concept in the brain as well as to a quality known as quantity(in terms of time, length or objects, etc) that exists independent of the brain, and is a property of things, such as the physical world. It is ridiculous to say that without the brain different quantities do not exist, and this is what is described in part when one uses the word 'number'. One could argue that quantities could exist even without any material representation, as it is conceivable that the possibility of say there being 3 as a possible quantity does not depend on any particular thing*(There can be 3 seconds, 3 meters, 3 apples, 3 empty spaces, 3 relationships, etc).

A number is both a concept as well as the description of the observed eventuality of there being a number of some thing not only in the world but even in mathematics. I would also say that mathematics can also be considered eternal, as even without brains relationships described by it will not cease to exist. Mathematics can be considered to be discovered not created, even if the ideas found are forgotten they can be rediscovered. So if they were erased from all books and thus were not found written in any medium yet were found again at a later date, is it not that they exist independent of the physical? For example, if a particular theorem is proven, and forgotten, it is impossible for someone who starts with the same premises later to prove this false and arrive at another theorem that contradicts it.

E.g. Physical phenomena is described by mathematics, even if humans all died, it wouldn't change the fact that the relationships, and interactions are related in the mathematical way used to describe them. One could also say that even if the physical ceased to exist, the abstract idea of a simulation indistinguishable from the real world would also be described by these mathematics... and as this simulation can be discovered and rediscovered independently again and again, it would seem to have an existence outside of the concrete world.

[apeiron]

It's the opposite, as your model seems to claim to describe all reality which would be an issue of ontology. We cannot comment on why there is something rather than nothing wthout some kind of ontology at hand.

If your proposed model only addressed certain narrow aspects of reality, without making general claims how everything works together, then yes, you could say your model has something worthwhile to say that could hint at something, without straying into religion/philosophy territories.
.

I don't see any validity in this at all. Although I have no problem straying into the territory of philosophy (which is modelling). It is the religion charge that does not stick.

Yes, what I am talking about here is a model of causality - a logic. A general model of how things, anything, happening.


You were the one who suggested that the proposition that mathematics could be at the basis of all reality was a 'religous movement'. I think your model, and any other for that matter, is currently in exactly the same boat. Let's not turn this into - 'my untestable proposition is better than yours because it seems to make more intuitive sense to me'.

A model of causality is testable. It is tested against reality. And where we get beyond measurements (as pre-big bang probably) then we can extrapolate. That is what you are doing (though probably not with complete consistency as I point out in the action~reaction thread). I say a different model of causality yields different expectations about philosophical questions such as why something rather than a nothing.

[qsa]

But I don't see random numbers as being the key. Rather it is the deeper principles of symmetries and symmetry-breaking.

You are getting close now. Random numbers ooze symmetries. Average a number of throws you get the same average whether 100 times or 1000000 times. Like you said, this is the beauty of random, chaotic but fully deterministic in the end (average, geometric average ....Frank’s), you will get p=1/6 for each face on a dice in the end. In my model in 3D, any point (not constraint) pulses lines everywhere and if you go on a surface of a ball around it you see the same thing. The EM I told you about is nothing but random numbers symmetry in action. I will have more on all of this later.

[baywax]

Number corresponds to both a concept in the brain as well as to a quality known as quantity(in terms of time, length or objects, etc) that exists independent of the brain

Your statement cannot be proven to any satisfactory degree. One reason is because it is your brain doing the talking. There is no independent "observer" that is not a brain to verify that numbers exist other than in the form of a concept.

(There can be 3 seconds, 3 meters, 3 apples, 3 empty spaces, 3 relationships, etc).

The number 3 or any other quantification is purely invented rather than discovered. Where do you start counting when each event or object is composed of a large, unknown number of sub-events/objects?

Putting a number to a quantity is the same as putting a name to face. It is an invention that takes place in response to a specific stimulus. The significance of the stimulus is determined by various genetic traits that most likely have to do with survival.... and little to do with the actual stimulus. We are compelled to count the countable parts out of a primal urge to control our environment... in the interest of survival.


E.g. Physical phenomena is described by mathematics, even if humans all died, it wouldn't change the fact that the relationships, and interactions are related in the mathematical way used to describe them.

If humans all died neither math or any other language would be in use or exist. The very concept and idea of "relationships" will have faded with the last human.

One could also say that even if the physical ceased to exist, the abstract idea of a simulation indistinguishable from the real world would also be described by these mathematics... and as this simulation can be discovered and rediscovered independently again and again, it would seem to have an existence outside of the concrete world.

To have an "abstract idea" you need a physical brain.

[flashprogram]

Your statement cannot be proven to any satisfactory degree. One reason is because it is your brain doing the talking. There is no independent "observer" that is not a brain to verify that numbers exist other than in the form of a concept.

Hmmm, how can I talk, conceive, and describe something that not only doesn't exist but cannot exist even as a potentially conceivable form? And how can that define aspects of the world independent of my existence?

Most scientists assume that the world is governed by the natural laws and that these are unchanging, to say that numbers depend on humans, is to question the laws governing the cosmos prior to human existence or logic applying to the universe(e.g. when 1 atom chemically bonds with another we have two atoms not 3 or 0.).


The number 3 or any other quantification is purely invented rather than discovered. Where do you start counting when each event or object is composed of a large, unknown number of sub-events/objects?
Is it possible to invent, to create a concept? The concept is but a possible way to categorize. That which the concept attempts to describe, cannot possibly be created merely by the act of describing an observed quality of the world. E.g. Quantities of things existing does not depend on humans, even if never counted in all eternity ten atoms a top a rock in planet x4060214 would still be ten atoms sitting there not 4 or 12.



Putting a number to a quantity is the same as putting a name to face. It is an invention that takes place in response to a specific stimulus. The significance of the stimulus is determined by various genetic traits that most likely have to do with survival.... and little to do with the actual stimulus. We are compelled to count the countable parts out of a primal urge to control our environment... in the interest of survival.
The descriptive word 'number' is like a name, but that which it describes is like a face. A face is described by the word 'face' but does not depend on the word for its existence. The properties of magnitude and quantity described by numbers do not depend on human thought for their existence.




If humans all died neither math or any other language would be in use or exist. The very concept and idea of "relationships" will have faded with the last human.

Even if no one has the concept of 'relationships' those relationships do exist and would continue to exist, the earth would still orbit the sun, and it would still be in a way describable by an equation, even if no one writes that equation.


To have an "abstract idea" you need a physical brain.
That is debatable. I think it would be foolish to argue that the brain creates ideas, and this is seen by many calling new findings in fields like mathematics 'discoveries'. If we take it the brain does not create ideas, the opposite must then be true. That is they must exist at least as a potential arrangement of information that can be instantiated in brains but exists independently of them. In chess if a particular game state has not been reached by the players it does not mean it does not exist, as the rules implicitly allow for such a state to exist as a possible outcome. The rules governing the function of the brain, implicitly allow an almost infinite number of states to be reached, each of these states exists as a potential outcome of following the rules in a specific environment with certain sensory organs*(I would even venture to say that it does not matter what medium is used to implement the rules.).

[baywax]

Hmmm, how can I talk, conceive, and describe something that not only doesn't exist but cannot exist even as a potentially conceivable form? And how can that define aspects of the world independent of my existence?

Most scientists assume that the world is governed by the natural laws and that these are unchanging, to say that numbers depend on humans, is to question the laws governing the cosmos prior to human existence or logic applying to the universe(e.g. when 1 atom chemically bonds with another we have two atoms not 3 or 0.).


Is it possible to invent, to create a concept? The concept is but a possible way to categorize. That which the concept attempts to describe, cannot possibly be created merely by the act of describing an observed quality of the world. E.g. Quantities of things existing does not depend on humans, even if never counted in all eternity ten atoms a top a rock in planet x4060214 would still be ten atoms sitting there not 4 or 12.



The descriptive word 'number' is like a name, but that which it describes is like a face. A face is described by the word 'face' but does not depend on the word for its existence. The properties of magnitude and quantity described by numbers do not depend on human thought for their existence.




Even if no one has the concept of 'relationships' those relationships do exist and would continue to exist, the earth would still orbit the sun, and it would still be in a way describable by an equation, even if no one writes that equation.


That is debatable. I think it would be foolish to argue that the brain creates ideas, and this is seen by many calling new findings in fields like mathematics 'discoveries'. If we take it the brain does not create ideas, the opposite must then be true. That is they must exist at least as a potential arrangement of information that can be instantiated in brains but exists independently of them. In chess if a particular game state has not been reached by the players it does not mean it does not exist, as the rules implicitly allow for such a state to exist as a possible outcome. The rules governing the function of the brain, implicitly allow an almost infinite number of states to be reached, each of these states exists as a potential outcome of following the rules in a specific environment with certain sensory organs*(I would even venture to say that it does not matter what medium is used to implement the rules.).

I'm sorry but I stand by the ancient rhetorical axiom

"who's counting?"

[flashprogram]

I'm sorry but I stand by the ancient rhetorical axiom

"who's counting?"

The problem with that is that even if all humans die and only a single healthy man from a tribe unable to count remains. He will still need two legs to stand on and he will walk on two legs, even if he can't count them. He will need two eyes for stereoscopic vision, and he will only see the earth orbiting one sun, and only one moon orbiting the earth. Even without knowing quantities, you need more than 0 quantity of water and 0 quantity of food to survive.

And again, this seems to imply that if you don't count it the quantity does not exist. Which would suggest that counting creates the quantity, that's like saying that measuring creates the result obtained. But how can that be? How can you measure something if it doesn't exist? Counting can be considered a type of measuring, whatever is measured must exist independent of counting or else there would be nothing to count.

[qsa]

In this model, nature comes about in such an automatic way. Pick a line and throw two random numbers. One denotes the position and the other length of pieces of lines, then you get a free particle which all of QM and QFT books have the opening in it. The particle exists in all space with the same probability. Next add constraint with the simplest expression and you get your particle in a box in 1D. Add the same constraint for the second axis just after the first one; you get the 2D picture (you can go to N). Also, the constraints splits the throws into two set of lines, one represent the momentum energy (these lines are confined to inside of the particle) and the second, get ready, represent mass and the lines can go to the end of the universe and that is how gravity gets created, that is when these lines interact with other lines of other particles (with a very simple expression again amounting to logic)! When particles come close and touch each other they interact with the internal lines and that is your get the other forces i.e. EM.



I just found out about this fantastic paper which comes close to my idea, with lots of math , of course. I guess I have to work much harder now!

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0507/0507109v4.pdf

The Dirac – Kerr-Newman electron.


Alexander Burinskii
Gravity Research Group, NSI, Russian Academy of Sciences, B. Tulskaya 52, 115191 Moscow, Russia

here is the last paragraph

In the considered Dirac – Kerr-Newman model the
Dirac wave function plays the especial role of a ‘master
equation’ which controls the polarization and set a
synchronization of tetrad. The perspective models of another
sort, in which the Dirac equation ‘feels’ the Kerr
geometry, i.e. has a back reaction from the Kerr geometry,
may be based on the stringy structures of the Kerr
geometry. It has to use some initially massless Dirac solutions
on the Kerr space-time, forming a foliation over
the complex Kerr string. The non-zero mass term of the
Dirac equation appears in this model by averaging over
the string length, similar to the appearance of the mass
in the massless dual string models. We expect to consider
such a model elsewhere.

[GeorgCantor]

Without a valid theory on how a wavefunction becomes something, there isn't going to be any progress. From a philosophical perspective, the wave function seems to be transcending the space-time bound as a more fundamental ontological explanation for our observations. The real problem we have here is the problem of mind and consciousness and how wavefunctions become observable matter particles. The answer to the OP is going to range from - the something is a branching actuality in a multiverse of possible outcomes to extreme theories of minds creating actualities. So the OP is not even a philosophical question, as it presupposes the existence of knowledge that isn't available. This, imo, is the border between philosophy and religion and sadly the important questions still seem to lie deep into the domain of religion and faith.

[qsa]

Without a valid theory on how a wavefunction becomes something, there isn't going to be any progress. From a philosophical perspective, the wave function seems to be transcending the space-time bound as a more fundamental ontological explanation for our observations. The real problem we have here is the problem of mind and consciousness and how wavefunctions become observable matter particles. The answer to the OP is going to range from - the something is a branching actuality in a multiverse of possible outcomes to extreme theories of minds creating actualities. So the OP is not even a philosophical question, as it presupposes the existence of knowledge that isn't available. This, imo, is the border between philosophy and religion and sadly the important questions still seem to lie deep into the domain of religion and faith.

The standard interpretation is good enough for the majority. To progress we need not stop at such problems too long ,although it should be ok for some people to try to beat this problem to death. More important and pressing issues are at hand. ie. quantum gravity, nature of particles, QFT reliability and meaning, the interrelations between all the main models and so on. Mixing religion and physics has long stopped to be valid and the competition has not been usefull since Kepler, maybe even longer than that. I believe each has its own arena now.

[GeorgCantor]

The standard interpretation is good enough for the majority.


I have no idea what you are talking about when you say majority and standard interpretation. The latest polls indicated that MWI is supported by the majority, whereas the standard interpretation is is still the Copenhagen - measurement causes collapse. So what exactly did you mean by "The standard interpretation is good enough for the majority"?

And how exactly does measurement causes collapse give you an idea as to what reality or "something" is? What kind of philosophical questions does "measurement causes collapse" answer? Is there an answered philosophical question at all by the standart "interpretation"? Please clarify, as i have no idea what you meant by that statement.


To progress we need not stop at such problems too long ,although it should be ok for some people to try to beat this problem to death.

You sound like you think there has been a resolution to the interpretational debate. You are wrong. Very deeply wrong.



More important and pressing issues are at hand. ie. quantum gravity, nature of particles, QFT reliability and meaning, the interrelations between all the main models and so on.


Huh???? You think QFT reliability(whatever that means) is more important that knowing what reality is and what exactly is going on, outside of how we observe...errr, the universe? The nature of reality and the world is less important than the interrelations between physics models? I am not sure that you understand what is at stake and what is being questioned.



Mixing religion and physics has long stopped to be valid and the competition has not been usefull since Kepler, maybe even longer than that. I believe each has its own arena now.


What kind of mixing are you proposing? Be specific.

[qsa]

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say majority and standard interpretation. The latest polls indicated that MWI is supported by the majority, whereas the standard interpretation is is still the Copenhagen - measurement causes collapse. So what exactly did you mean by "The standard interpretation is good enough for the majority"?

from wiki

""According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997[7], the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation ""

I don't think the many-worlds helps in collapse either since it denies it and certainly does not support your "The real problem we have here is the problem of mind and consciousness ".


And how exactly does measurement causes collapse give you an idea as to what reality or "something" is? What kind of philosophical questions does "measurement causes collapse" answer? Is there an answered philosophical question at all by the standart "interpretation"? Please clarify, as i have no idea what you meant by that statement.

You sound like you think there has been a resolution to the interpretational debate. You are wrong. Very deeply wrong.

I did not say that. I am sorry you misunderstood. I just said there are more pressing issues.


Huh???? You think QFT reliability(whatever that means) is more important that knowing what reality is and what exactly is going on, outside of how we observe...errr, the universe? The nature of reality and the world is less important than the interrelations between physics models? I am not sure that you understand what is at stake and what is being questioned.


I would say at least 99% of work in physics revolves around finding a good model that corresponds to reality i.e. experiments. GRW and the likes are great, really great. But the 99% know what is at stake when they work with Axiomatic QFT,String, LQG, AS, CDT, Twister and all kinds of combinations not to mention the many cosmological models based on GR. one look at what is been published in arxiv is enough.



What kind of mixing are you proposing? Be specific.

I'll be more blunt. Ever since the discovery that the earth is not flat and and the sun(and the universe) does not revolve around the earth and animals where not saved by a boat; classical religion , no matter how hard it tries it has lost grounds big time. I feel some people try to salvage this loss by finding loopholes in modern science. No need really, I think all humans (don't mind some with strong back reaction) respect religion come what may.

[GeorgCantor]

I'll be more blunt. Ever since the discovery that the earth is not flat and and the sun(and the universe) does not revolve around the earth and animals where not saved by a boat; classical religion , no matter how hard it tries it has lost grounds big time. I feel some people try to salvage this loss by finding loopholes in modern science. No need really, I think all humans (don't mind some with strong back reaction) respect religion come what may.



You could be religious without belonging to any particular religious dogma.

[qsa]

You could be religious without belonging to any particular religious dogma.

I agree.

[kishore_13]

Why not? The general form is first explicated by the philosopher Robert Nozick. Why don` t you ask him? Ops, his dead.





No. In my hypothesis, I never called existence brute fact. My hypothsis does assume existence of the world, and is a justified assumption, unless you want to doubt it. Do you?





Brute fact has a technical meaning in philosophy.

X is a brute fact if and only if 1. X is contingent, and 2. It is not entailed by other facts.

2 is not completely precise, because i don` t want to get into all the technical stuff here.
The basic idea is that X is the effect, or result of some other facts. That is to say, There is not facts q, such that q implies the existence of X.

"See no big words either, other than "ontological". Was that too big for you?"
What are you talking about? It is tiny!

Now for X to be brute fact there should another fact to prove it.Now,for the existence of the other fact which proves the fact X,it needs to be a fact too.So,where this cycle stars..is where it ends.

[yoda jedi]

You could be religious without belonging to any particular religious dogma.




3. (adj) religious:
scrupulously faithful or exact; strict

[Galteeth]

Without a valid theory on how a wavefunction becomes something, there isn't going to be any progress. From a philosophical perspective, the wave function seems to be transcending the space-time bound as a more fundamental ontological explanation for our observations. The real problem we have here is the problem of mind and consciousness and how wavefunctions become observable matter particles. The answer to the OP is going to range from - the something is a branching actuality in a multiverse of possible outcomes to extreme theories of minds creating actualities. So the OP is not even a philosophical question, as it presupposes the existence of knowledge that isn't available. This, imo, is the border between philosophy and religion and sadly the important questions still seem to lie deep into the domain of religion and faith.

There is also the idea that existence depends upon knowlegde being incomplete. That is, total information would be the same de facto as "nothing." Maybe then, the paradox is an essential feature of existence itself.