What is the Origin of Everything?

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Mentat
If you knew Quantum Mechanics, you'd realize that it doesn't require "magic" to create a universe from nothing. Do you know what the net energy of the universe is? It's zero. Every bit of matter is equal to a certain amount of positive energy, but gravity (which is produced by all matter) has negative energy. Conclusion: The negative energy of the gravitational field - produced by all objects - cancels out the positive energy - produced by all objects. Thus, it takes exactly 0 energy, to make a universe.

Also, Eyesee, your use of the word "nothing" was the real problem, but as you seem to have abandoned the use of this word (and have instead taken the word "magic"), I don't see any need for me to explain the flaw to you. If you want to (and are open-minded enough), check out the aforementioned thread (Exercise in Nothing Semantics).

Well, I think that is just a play on the term "0 energy". "0 energy" in this context is not truly a lack of energy but a composite of negative and positive energy.

This is still a logical model for existence, which ultimately leads to infinite regression. If you don't believe me, just keep asking "where does that come from" out of every "fundamental" something you discover.

I'm not saying that an infinitely regressive logical universe isn't possible, just that in such, the question of existence is futile and unprovable since one can never count to infinity.

The only way to resolve the question of existence is through a break in logic. Magic. Well, I guess some would say here that magic itself is futile and unprovable. My answer to this would be that the fact that something exist proves that it came to existence. And the only way to come into existence from a true void is by magic.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Yeah, magic and the supernatural are not rational concepts. So what.

?

Originally posted by wuliheron
Existence is demonstrably irrational because every explanation put forth for it is irrational.

So you say, but I couldn't disagree more. One can always find ways to say there isn't anything which is true, real, rational . . . but then nothing has any meaning whatsoever. We've assigned meanings to terms and experiences in order to communicate about them the best we can. If one understands that terms and descriptions only represent reality, and are not themselves actual reality, then it is perfectly fine to discuss things and and expect rationality. For the most part, I believe it is a waste of time to incessantly cast doubt on the relationship between mental images and reality, unless someone in a communication interaction seems utterly blind to that.

Originally posted by wuliheron
YEven your idea of "potential" existing before existence is circular logic, self-referential and self-contradictory paradox. At least in calling it magical it goes directly to the point and doesn't obfiscate and pretend to be rational. :0)

I have this friend who is well educated in history, but knows virtually nothing about human psychology. To him, every problem a man has stems from either having a short man syndrome, or being a republican (or both). Similarly, it seems that every problem you find with others' points is that they don't properly understand paradox, and their logic is "circular, self-referential and/or self-contradictory."

If your statement above is a serious statement, I would love to hear you defend that. Exactly how is it "circular" to make the simple observation that all which exists (and I should add "in time and space") must have been preceded by the potential to exist? I mean, where in my statement have I merely repeated my argument, or assumed the conclusion that is to be proven?

How is it self referential? For that I would have to say something like, "all generalizations are false." Where do you see that?

And really Wuli, how is it self-contradictory? Demostrate precisely where/how my logical linking of prior potential to the existence of thing is contradictory. In fact, demostrate how one can possibly get around that principle.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Yeah, magic and the supernatural are not rational concepts. So what. Existence is demonstrably irrational because every explanation put forth for it is irrational. Even your idea of "potential" existing before existence is circular logic, self-referential and self-contradictory paradox. At least in calling it magical it goes directly to the point and doesn't obfiscate and pretend to be rational. :0)

Wu Li, when are you going to realize that just because all efforts to describe somthing have failed, it doesn't mean that the thing they are trying to describe is indescribable. That is the most closed-minded stance that it is possible to take. And open-minded person would realize that all it proves - to not have succeeded at describing something - is that you have not succeeded at describing something. And optimist would even go so far as to say that it means we must be closer to the answer, because trial-and-error dictates that the more times you fail, the more likely you are to find the answer.

I'm not asking you to be optimistic, merely open-minded.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Well, I think that is just a play on the term "0 energy". "0 energy" in this context is not truly a lack of energy but a composite of negative and positive energy.

This is still a logical model for existence, which ultimately leads to infinite regression. If you don't believe me, just keep asking "where does that come from" out of every "fundamental" something you discover.

I'm not saying that an infinitely regressive logical universe isn't possible, just that in such, the question of existence is futile and unprovable since one can never count to infinity.

The only way to resolve the question of existence is through a break in logic. Magic. Well, I guess some would say here that magic itself is futile and unprovable. My answer to this would be that the fact that something exist proves that it came to existence. And the only way to come into existence from a true void is by magic.

A "true void" exists, I can still ask where it came from. I don't think that Magic is any better an explanation then infinite regression. In fact, I don't think that either suffices, and I'll stick with BB theory.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
If you knew Quantum Mechanics, you'd realize that it doesn't require "magic" to create a universe from nothing. Do you know what the net energy of the universe is? It's zero. Every bit of matter is equal to a certain amount of positive energy, but gravity (which is produced by all matter) has negative energy. Conclusion: The negative energy of the gravitational field - produced by all objects - cancels out the positive energy - produced by all objects. Thus, it takes exactly 0 energy, to make a universe.

I wouldn't think you would buy that science mumbo jumbo so trustingly. It is just the desparate interpretation of those who know there is still no viable explanation for the origin of the universe's energy. It is merely one way to interpret that zero, and in no way already accepted as true. Besides, it only applies locally; how does it explain that the universe is expanding, and the rate of expansion is believed to be increasing? Plus, what about dark energy? That zero could very well represent entirely as yet unrecognized dynamics.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eyesee
[BAny logical model of the universe leads to infinite regression; the only way out of this infinite regression and thus resolving the question of existence is through a break in cause and effect- by magic. [/B]

Well, you've not explained why we must have infinite regression. What if, as I said before, there is some most fundamental uncreated, eternally-existiing "stuff" of which all things are a form of? Then "things" only regress back to that base state as the lose the temporary form they've taken.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well, you've not explained why we must have infinite regression. What if, as I said before, there is some most fundamental uncreated, eternally-existiing "stuff" of which all things are a form of? Then "things" only regress back to that base state as the lose the temporary form they've taken.

But I can always ask "where does that 'stuff' come from?" So if you stipulate that this "stuff" has the quality of not being caused, then this itself is a break in cause and effect. So, whether it's by magic or by imposing an eternal primal "stuff", you are breaking the infinitely regressing cause-effect chain by assuming something irrational- something that had no cause.

I just think "magic" is an even more "basic" explanation than a "fundamental uncreated, eternally-existing 'stuff'". What comes before nothing? Nothing. So, I choose that as my starting point.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eyesee
But I can always ask "where does that 'stuff'" come from? So if you impose that this "stuff" has the quality of not being caused, then this itself is a break in cause and effect. So, whether it's by magic or imposing an eternal primal "stuff", you are breaking the
cause-effect chain. I just think "magic" is a more elemental explanation than a "fundamental uncreated, eternally-existing 'stuff'". What comes before nothing? Nothing. So, I choose that as my starting point.

Yes, with the uncreated "stuff" you break the cause-effect chain. I thought that was what you were looking for.

Magic has been proven to be a mere illusion. What in reality has ever demonstrated it can get around the rules of reality, and therefore give you hope that actual magic (i.e., not just an illlusion) can really occur?

Finally, again I must fault your concept of nothing because that "nothing" must contain the potential for the universe, life and consciousness since we now exist. It is not "nothing" if it contains so much potential.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Yes, with the uncreated "stuff" you break the cause-effect chain. I thought that was what you were looking for.

Magic has been proven to be a mere illusion. What in reality has ever demonstrated it can get around the rules of reality, and therefore give you hope that actual magic (i.e., not just an illlusion) can really occur?

Finally, again I must fault your concept of nothing because that "nothing" must contain the potential for the universe, life and consciousness since we now exist. It is not "nothing" if it contains so much potential.

Well, if there was no energy, no matter, and no space, wouldn't that be an appropriate definition for "nothing"? Under this definition of nothing, there is "potential" for something to exist, but this "potential" is not matter, energy, or space- so it is something irrational.

I'm not really disagreeing with your idea, merely pointing out that to break the infinite regression, one must break the logic. That is, we must start off with an irrational assumption. Magic or potential- they are both irrational since they do not obey the causal principle.

 

[wuliheron]

Well, you've not explained why we must have infinite regression. What if, as I said before, there is some most fundamental uncreated, eternally-existiing "stuff" of which all things are a form of? Then "things" only regress back to that base state as the lose the temporary form they've taken.

What you are essentially asking here is what if... there were some magical substance... Stuff which has no origin or cause...

In other words, back to the same issue again. I know the idea of "stuff" of some sort seems more reasonable maybe than some sort of magical "energy" or whatever, but bottom line it is not. At least, not by any logic I'm aware of.

Wu Li, when are you going to realize that just because all efforts to describe somthing have failed, it doesn't mean that the thing they are trying to describe is indescribable. That is the most closed-minded stance that it is possible to take. And open-minded person would realize that all it proves - to not have succeeded at describing something - is that you have not succeeded at describing something. And optimist would even go so far as to say that it means we must be closer to the answer, because trial-and-error dictates that the more times you fail, the more likely you are to find the answer.

When are you going to realize that a demonstrably irrational and possibly magical universe does not mean it can be described.

The only way to resolve the question of existence is through a break in logic. Magic. Well, I guess some would say here that magic itself is futile and unprovable. My answer to this would be that the fact that something exist proves that it came to existence. And the only way to come into existence from a true void is by magic.

Sorry, but insisting magic is a resolution to the situation is like insisting dill pickles explain the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, it apparently does not make rational sense. It may be then that if it does make rational sense, either it is beyond the human capicity to comprehend or it is ineffable.

That being the case, it may also be that logic is just inappropriate to use in certain contexts such as existence itself. This does not, however, rule out our emotional connection to life, the universe, and everything.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Well, if there was no energy, no matter, and no space, wouldn't that be an appropriate definition for "nothing"? Under this definition of nothing, there is "potential" for something to exist, but this "potential" is not matter, energy, or space- so it is something irrational.

I'm not really disagreeing with your idea, merely pointing out that to break the infinite regression, one must break the logic. That is, we must start off with an irrational assumption. Magic or potential- they are both irrational since they do not obey the causal principle.

I think I am starting to see what you mean. Sometimes how we each interpret words can be quite different even if we agree on the overall meaning.

But to answer your question, "if there was no energy, no matter, and no space, wouldn't that be an appropriate definition for 'nothing'?", First, remember that I asked you up front if you meant by "nothing" if it was just the absense of "form" or a complete and total void.

If there is something other than energy, matter and space -- something that is not detected by our sensing machinery -- then no, your concept would not fit that of "nothing." In fact, if this absolute "stuff" is the essence of all that exists, then there is actually no way for "nothing" to exist.

As to your point that a break in the logic of infinite cause and effect is irrational, I would say that it is only irrational to those who insist that every effect must have a cause. That does not mean that the theory of an uncreated potential doesn't make sense . . . you understand the concept don't you?

Magic, however, is another subject. So far, everything that initially seemed "magical" has been found to make sense when more facts were discovered. Based on that experience, we might surmise that although existence is difficult to understand with the information we have, the ultimate basis/origin of of existence will make sense when/if we ever get enough information about how existence works.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I wouldn't think you would buy that science mumbo jumbo so trustingly. It is just the desparate interpretation of those who know there is still no viable explanation for the origin of the universe's energy. It is merely one way to interpret that zero, and in no way already accepted as true. Besides, it only applies locally; how does it explain that the universe is expanding, and the rate of expansion is believed to be increasing? Plus, what about dark energy? That zero could very well represent entirely as yet unrecognized dynamics.

LW Sleeth, It isn't mumbo jumbo, it's Quantum Uncertainty. You see, nothing is ever perfectly definable, so from a state of absolutely no existence could pop up an entire universe. All that this "0" argument proves is that the very "energy" didn't have to come from energy, but could have just come about.

Anyway, it's not my idea, it just seemed pertinent to the discussion.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Well, if there was no energy, no matter, and no space, wouldn't that be an appropriate definition for "nothing"?

You say "if there was". That implies time, there can also be no time (as time is something), in your supposed "nothing". This is a key point, because to imply that there was a thing called "nothing" that existed before "everything" is to imply that "nothing" exists on the T dimension, and this is contradictory.

I'm not really disagreeing with your idea, merely pointing out that to break the infinite regression, one must break the logic.

Not necessarily. One must break the cause-and-effect chain, yes. But not logic. An existence that had no creator/cause can be logical.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
LW Sleeth, It isn't mumbo jumbo, it's Quantum Uncertainty. You see, nothing is ever perfectly definable, so from a state of absolutely no existence could pop up an entire universe. All that this "0" argument proves is that the very "energy" didn't have to come from energy, but could have just come about.

I called it "mumbo jumbo" because some people are already citing this interpretation as the "truth." I believe they do that because they are desparate for a source of the universe's energy, and they don't have it. I have read everything I can find on the zero point concept and find the interpretation of "something from nothing" to be an incredible leap.

If you have evidence/studies that suggest I should hve more faith in this interpretation, I would love to see it.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
You write very poetic prose but are you denying that nothing is the absence of anything, and therefore is the only "thing" that need not have a cause?

It is always possible to ask about the origin of something, ad infinitum. Anything that has substance that you claim to be the origin, I can always think of something coming before. The only "thing" in which the question "where does this come from" leads to an absolute and irrefutable answer is "NOTHING".

And if Nothing is the only thing imaginable that need not a cause, it can be said to be the first cause. Everything came from nothing.

This is absurd reasoning. There can't be a state of "nothing" cause it is a timeless and unchanging state. If we recognize the fact that we now observe an existing world, it can't have started from a "non-existing" world.

Because we should negate your thesis that any existing state can be a successor of a non-existing state or a state of "nothing", it follows that there can't have been a beginning state (which would be the only state where there was no preceding state, in other words, it came from "nothing"). So, the world is in eternal movement, without begin or end.

 

[wuliheron]

This is absurd reasoning. There can't be a state of "nothing" cause it is a timeless and unchanging state. If we recognize the fact that we now observe an existing world, it can't have started from a "non-existing" world.

Yes, that's correct, magic is absurd. That's part of its magic. The meaning of life, the universe, and everything may well be dill pickles, albeit, crunchy ones thank you. With that attitude, it becomes possible to look at life, the universe, and everything with an unbiased mind that does not axiomatically reject the irrational.

I called it "mumbo jumbo" because some people are already citing this interpretation as the "truth." I believe they do that because they are desparate for a source of the universe's energy, and they don't have it. I have read everything I can find on the zero point concept and find the interpretation of "something from nothing" to be an incredible leap.

If you have evidence/studies that suggest I should hve more faith in this interpretation, I would love to see it.

You miss the central issue imo. Paraconsistent logic has proven invaluable over the last hundred years and is central to Quantum Mechanics. Hence applying the Aristotlian principle of the excluded middle is simply not always productive or appropriate and simply does not describe everything we see. Of course such ideas sound absurd, but that does not prove they don't actually occur or that they are useless. :0)

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by heusdens
This is absurd reasoning. There can't be a state of "nothing" cause it is a timeless and unchanging state. If we recognize the fact that we now observe an existing world, it can't have started from a "non-existing" world.

Because we should negate your thesis that any existing state can be a successor of a non-existing state or a state of "nothing", it follows that there can't have been a beginning state (which would be the only state where there was no preceding state, in other words, it came from "nothing"). So, the world is in eternal movement, without begin or end.

No, it is not absurd. I can't follow your post- please rewrite it. As for eternal existence, tell me how you are going to prove that? Can you count to infinity? If not, then you can't claim to know that existence is eternal. So, why not start at 0? Nada? Null? Nothing? Forget the negative numbers, let's just start at 0 then the question of existence is resolved.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Mentat
You say "if there was". That implies time, there can also be no time (as time is something), in your supposed "nothing". This is a key point, because to imply that there was a thing called "nothing" that existed before "everything" is to imply that "nothing" exists on the T dimension, and this is contradictory.



Not necessarily. One must break the cause-and-effect chain, yes. But not logic. An existence that had no creator/cause can be logical.

Ok, you're right. Nothing is hard to describe. But we do agree on the fact that we have to assume something irrational for existence to exist. By irrational I mean that it doesn't follow the causal principle.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
No, it is not absurd. I can't follow your post- please rewrite it. As for eternal existence, tell me how you are going to prove that? Can you count to infinity? If not, then you can't claim to know that existence is eternal. So, why not start at 0? Nada? Null? Nothing? Forget the negative numbers, let's just start at 0 then the question of existence is resolved.

Resolved? You are just applying "plain magic" there, and want me to accept that as an explenation?
Why start at the arbitrary point 0? What makes you think there is such a special point on the timeline? How do you know that? Any point in time is exactly the same as any other point on the time line with respect to the fact that every point has preceding points and succesive points, in other words, the timeline has no begin or end.

And please tell me exactly how you arrive from nothing to something, even if the something is infinitesimally small.

Therefore I just assume, with good reasons, that material existence is without begin or end. I don't need to count it, in order to proof that. There is no way one can count an infinite set. I can't even start counting on the infinite timeline, cause wherever I start, I always leave behind an infinite set.

Read further this text, by Friedrich Engels (1877) "Anti-Duhring". http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1877-AD/p1.htm#c5"

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
But I can always ask "where does that 'stuff' come from?" So if you stipulate that this "stuff" has the quality of not being caused, then this itself is a break in cause and effect. So, whether it's by magic or by imposing an eternal primal "stuff", you are breaking the infinitely regressing cause-effect chain by assuming something irrational- something that had no cause.

I just think "magic" is an even more "basic" explanation than a "fundamental uncreated, eternally-existing 'stuff'". What comes before nothing? Nothing. So, I choose that as my starting point.

The cause-and-effect law can be applied to something definite, like the moon, the sun, the solar system, an apple. The cause-and-effect law can describe how something formed out of something else.

A territory in which the cause-and-effect law can not be applied to, is when you want to apply it to the whole of totality (everything that exists, the totality of material existence). Cause the totality of material existence already includes everything, therefore there can be no "outside" cause for material existence.

This can be also looked at as follows. Material existence has no alternative. For the only candidate for an existing material world, in whatever form or shape, would be a non-existing material world, which by definition, does not exist.

So, there isn't anything that "created" material existence, material existence just is (in eternal motion, without begin or end).

Read this: http://www.everythingforever.com/ywexist.htm"

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Ok, you're right. Nothing is hard to describe. But we do agree on the fact that we have to assume something irrational for existence to exist. By irrational I mean that it doesn't follow the causal principle.

I don't think one has to assume something "irrational" to explain existence. It can't be explained using causal relations, cause they are only applicable within existence, and not for existence itself.
(since existence includes all that exists, there is not anything out of existence, so no "outside" cause can be proposed to explain existence itself).

The question about existence is the issue of why there exist something rather then nothing. Different philosophers have tried to deal with this issue in different ways (mainly in the field of ontology) and came up with different answers.
According to some philosophers the question is meaningless. For instance any explenation of "why is it the case that A?" needs an answer in the form of "because B is the case". But in this case, such an explenation cannot be given, since we can not assume the existence of anything to give grounds for such an explenation.

The question of why there is existence is a peculiar question, and one which is unanswerable. Existence just is, it has no cause or reason.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
LW Sleeth, It isn't mumbo jumbo, it's Quantum Uncertainty. You see, nothing is ever perfectly definable, so from a state of absolutely no existence could pop up an entire universe. All that this "0" argument proves is that the very "energy" didn't have to come from energy, but could have just come about.

Anyway, it's not my idea, it just seemed pertinent to the discussion.

The quantum vacuum state is imo not a candidate for a real state of nothingness. A state of nothingness is a state outside time, space and material existence, so not even quantum effects are existence in such a state.
Quantum mechanics just explains us that there isn't and can't be such a state of true nothingness.

The quantum mechanical state of a vacuum is not inexistence, it is existence in a material way, in a spatiotemporal way. It is existence at all times and all places in an ever changing way.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Everything came from nothing because it is the only thing
that doesn't come from anything.

A statement as "everything came from nothing" seems to implie that it is the application of causal laws. However this application is outside of it's context, cause causal effects are spatiotemporal bound to material existence. Every material form or shape is caused by another material form or shape, but there isn't a material shape or form that is not caused by any material shape or form, or in other words: material existence doesn't "pop out of nothing".

If we negate the statement (i.e. everything came not from nothing) we see that the opposite is true, namely that every existing state of the material world is the effect of an previous state of the material world, which means that material existence is without begin or end.
It's the only sensible statement we can make about material existence.

 

[wuliheron]

The question of why there is existence is a peculiar question, and one which is unanswerable. Existence just is, it has no cause or reason.

Silly rabbit, trix are for kids.

Saying existence just IS, is just so much rhetorical nonsense. It is neither an explanation nor even a meaningful discription. Might as well just say it is magical at that rate or that dill pickles explain everything.

If existence is ineffable, unspeakable, then why do you keep trying? Why do you keep insisting infinity explains existence and then contradicting yourself by admitting infinity cannot be proven?

If we negate the statement (i.e. everything came not from nothing) we see that the opposite is true, namely that every existing state of the material world is the effect of an previous state of the material world, which means that material existence is without begin or end.
It's the only sensible statement we can make about material existence.

More nonsense disguised as meaningful statements. Sorry, but again this denies a century of evidence in Quantum Mechanics that everything may very well not be derived from some previous existent state. As any little kid knows, it's easy to get lost in infinity when you attempt to use it to explain anything.

Again, infinity is a paradoxical concept and to say it is sensible is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. For something to have no limits is, in itself, a limit. Every bit as misleading and self-referential as saying everything comes from nothing or from dill pickles. The only sensible thing we can say about existence is that it is demonstrably Paradoxical and possibly ineffable.

Of course, such elementary prehistoric reasoning doesn't stop people from infinitely attempting to explain existence using infinity. What a waste of time. Careful, don't spin in circles too fast or you'll throw up.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Ok, you're right. Nothing is hard to describe. But we do agree on the fact that we have to assume something irrational for existence to exist. By irrational I mean that it doesn't follow the causal principle.

If by "irrational", you mean "without cause", then I agree.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by heusdens
I don't think one has to assume something "irrational" to explain existence. It can't be explained using causal relations, cause they are only applicable within existence, and not for existence itself.
(since existence includes all that exists, there is not anything out of existence, so no "outside" cause can be proposed to explain existence itself).

The question about existence is the issue of why there exist something rather then nothing. Different philosophers have tried to deal with this issue in different ways (mainly in the field of ontology) and came up with different answers.
According to some philosophers the question is meaningless. For instance any explenation of "why is it the case that A?" needs an answer in the form of "because B is the case". But in this case, such an explenation cannot be given, since we can not assume the existence of anything to give grounds for such an explenation.

The question of why there is existence is a peculiar question, and one which is unanswerable. Existence just is, it has no cause or reason.

"Existence just is, it has no cause or reason", in other words, it's magic?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Silly rabbit, trix are for kids.

Saying existence just IS, is just so much rhetorical nonsense. It is neither an explanation nor even a meaningful discription. Might as well just say it is magical at that rate or that dill pickles explain everything.

If existence is ineffable, unspeakable, then why do you keep trying? Why do you keep insisting infinity explains existence and then contradicting yourself by admitting infinity cannot be proven?

Infinity can not be proven, since it cannot be measured. As such I agree on this, even on the fact that infinity is a contradictional concept.

However, my statement does make sense, in that it negates the supposed fact that material existence had a begin or final cause.

More nonsense disguised as meaningful statements. Sorry, but again this denies a century of evidence in Quantum Mechanics that everything may very well not be derived from some previous existent state. As any little kid knows, it's easy to get lost in infinity when you attempt to use it to explain anything.

I hold it that the existence of Quantum Mechanical effects itself is some form of material existence.

Again, infinity is a paradoxical concept and to say it is sensible is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. For something to have no limits is, in itself, a limit. Every bit as misleading and self-referential as saying everything comes from nothing or from dill pickles. The only sensible thing we can say about existence is that it is demonstrably Paradoxical and possibly ineffable.

I agree that material existence is full of contradictions, and all attempts to get rid of the contradictions will create more and deeper contradictions.

Of course, such elementary prehistoric reasoning doesn't stop people from infinitely attempting to explain existence using infinity. What a waste of time. Careful, don't spin in circles too fast or you'll throw up.

Here is a text that deals more substantially with these issues: http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1877-AD/p1.htm#c5"

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
"Existence just is, it has no cause or reason", in other words, it's magic?

No, on the contrary. In my mind to state that material existence DID have a beginning, can be hold as a form of MAGIC that occurred (material existence suddenly popping out of nowhere). Since I state that such a begin did not occur, I think there was no magic involved.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Everything came from nothing because it is the only thing
that doesn't come from anything.

Suppose we have a box with coines in them. I make the following statement about this box of coins. I say: "everything in the box weights less then 1 kilogram".
Now the fact shows up that the coin with the maximum weight is exactly 100 gram. However the weigt of the box of coins minus the weight of the box itself is 2 kilograms, so the coins together weight 2 kilograms.

Is my statement true or not?

You can argue it is true because there is no coin which weights more then 1 kilogram. Each coin weights less then 1 kilogram.
And you can argue that it is false because the weight of all the coins together is more then 1 kilogram.

This is an introduction to the slippery use of language, which is used in the statement "everything came from nothing".

The statement has double meaning, it can either mean that every individual thing came from nothing, i.e. the statement says that is is true for every individual thing that it came from nothing, i.e. it did not come from anything.
Or, alternatively, it can mean to say that everything in totallity came from nothing, i.e. it didn't come from anything.

The first statement is of course false, because of the law of causal effect. The second statement is however true.

This may seem contradictional, but you have to consider that the truthvalue of a statement about all members of a group is not necessarily the same as the truthvalue of a statement about the group itself.

For instance, we can say that every member of a football team has a parent. But the football team itself does not (necesarily) have a parent.

This type of argument, based on this confusion, is often used in defending the existence of a "creator", which in simple forms is the following line of argument: Everything has a cause. The world exists. So, it must have a cause, or been caused by something. Hence, a creator is needed (no creation without creator).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Suppose we have a box with coines in them. I make the following statement about this box of coins. I say: "everything in the box weights less then 1 kilogram".
Now the fact shows up that the coin with the maximum weight is exactly 100 gram. However the weigt of the box of coins minus the weight of the box itself is 2 kilograms, so the coins together weight 2 kilograms.

Is my statement true or not?

You can argue it is true because there is no coin which weights more then 1 kilogram. Each coin weights less then 1 kilogram.
And you can argue that it is false because the weight of all the coins together is more then 1 kilogram.

This is an introduction to the slippery use of language, which is used in the statement "everything came from nothing".

The statement has double meaning, it can either mean that every individual thing came from nothing, i.e. the statement says that is is true for every individual thing that it came from nothing, i.e. it did not come from anything.
Or, alternatively, it can mean to say that everything in totallity came from nothing, i.e. it didn't come from anything.

The first statement is of course false, because of the law of causal effect. The second statement is however true.

This may seem contradictional, but you have to consider that the truthvalue of a statement about all members of a group is not necessarily the same as the truthvalue of a statement about the group itself.

For instance, we can say that every member of a football team has a parent. But the football team itself does not (necesarily) have a parent.

This type of argument, based on this confusion, is often used in defending the existence of a "creator", which in simple forms is the following line of argument: Everything has a cause. The world exists. So, it must have a cause, or been caused by something. Hence, a creator is needed (no creation without creator).

You make a good point, heusdens. Actually, it is even more of a "slippery language" condition than you mentioned - because you mentioned how the use of "everything" can have double meaning, but the use of the word "nothing" can also have double meaning.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
You make a good point, heusdens. Actually, it is even more of a "slippery language" condition than you mentioned - because you mentioned how the use of "everything" can have double meaning, but the use of the word "nothing" can also have double meaning.

I think nothing just means "not any thing" and can't and shouldn't be used otherwise (at least not in the context in which it is supposed to be a thing).

But it's true that most confusion here on the forum on some topics arise out of flawed use of language expressions.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
I think nothing just means "not any thing" and can't and shouldn't be used otherwise (at least not in the context in which it is supposed to be a thing).

But it's true that most confusion here on the forum on some topics arise out of flawed use of language expressions.

Exactly, and that's the point of my "exercise". Seriously, if you take any sentence, in which one makes a case for "nothing"'s being something, and use my "exercise" on it, it usually either ceases to have meaning, or becomes rational.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Exactly, and that's the point of my "exercise". Seriously, if you take any sentence, in which one makes a case for "nothing"'s being something, and use my "exercise" on it, it usually either ceases to have meaning, or becomes rational.

Well your intitial statement "everything came from nothing" is a typical example of flawed use of language expressions. It should have been stated like "The universe is uncaused". (we can for reasons of avoiding ambiguity not use the term "everything" for "universe")

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by heusdens
Well your intitial statement "everything came from nothing" is a typical example of flawed use of language expressions. It should have been stated like "The universe is uncaused". (we can for reasons of avoiding ambiguity not use the term "everything" for "universe")

"Uncaused" has the same meaning as caused by "nothing", depending on the usage of the word nothing. I do agree however that "uncaused" is more clear. But "uncaused" for me is also synonymous with "magic".


I consider any phenomena, process, substance, etc, that does not obey the causal principle as "magical".

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eyesee
"Uncaused" has the same meaning as caused by "nothing", depending on the usage of the word nothing. I do agree however that "uncaused" is more clear. But "uncaused" for me is also synonymous with "magic".


I consider any phenomena, process, substance, etc, that does not obey the causal principle as "magical".

Anything IN the universe obeys causal principles (at least to some extent, QM may tell a different story however) but not the universe as a whole.

It may sound 'magical', yet it really is not. In fact the opposite (the universe being 'caused' by some unknown entity) is magical.
It is contradictionary also, cause the fact that the universe is best seen as 'all there is' does BY DEFINITION not provide for the existence of something outside it.

The real meaning of the statement that the universe is uncaused is however is that it did not appear suddenly out of nothing, but had existed always, and will always exist.

The irronical thing however that - based on scientific knowledge - we know that this is not true, at least not in a trivial way. Everything in the universe is evolving, and will eventuale evade. This holds true for stars, planets, star systems, galaxies, etc. But even when we provide for a mechanism that recreates starts, planets and galaxies, for theoretical reasons (mainly because of the overall domination of gravity) the universe could not be stable for all of eternity.
Moreover the Big Bang theory provides us a global history of the universe, a model of an expanding universe, which in the past was much smaller and much more dense and much hotter.
It even puts a practical limit on how far we can see back, cause we are not able to directly observe things in the universe before the Big Bang happened. The cause of the Big Bang is still under investigation.
Note however that if we use the concential terms here, and say the universe was caused in the big bang, we run into deep trouble again, because the big bang cannot have a cause then. We can circumvade this problem only by assuming that some or other form of material existence in a spatiotemporal way, already existed before the big bang, and caused the big bang. It follows then that the universe we witness today, even including that what we assume is outside of our horizon of sight in the same 'spacetime bubble', can only be part of the universe.

Some might claim however that the universe 'started' in the Big Bang, that time, space and material existence started in the Big Bang.
This brings us back to the old days of mysticism...

Future scientific discoveries will eventually provide a better answer then that.

 

[wuliheron]

The real meaning of the statement that the universe is uncaused is however is that it did not appear suddenly out of nothing, but had existed always, and will always exist.

These are just two ways of saying the same thing, that is, that existence has no cause. Here is the dictionary definition of supernatural:

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous.

Existence can be said to fullfill all of these criteria.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
These are just two ways of saying the same thing, that is, that existence has no cause. Here is the dictionary definition of supernatural:

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.


Existence can be said to fullfill all of these criteria.

I don't see that exactly.
Existence is not supernatural, and existence does not fullfill any of your criteria, I'm affraid.

You are trapped into thinking that what is true for all members of a group, must be true for the group itself. You cannot place the laws of causality outside the existing material world they don't have meaning there, material existence is an eternal process, the process itself consists of endless excercises of the law of cause-and-effect, so existence is causality.

1. Existence (material existence) is not 'outside' the natural world. The natural world IS existence, without the need for a 'deity'.

2. Natural forces don't violate natural forces, natural forces can only violate our models of natural forces, which means either we have conducted a bad experiment, or we discovered a new behaviour in nature, not previously known

3. Existence does not relate to a 'deity', not withstanding the fact that some existing people are exercising a 'relation' to a 'deity'.

4. Nor does existence relate to 'divine power/

5. This is self-referential (something miraculous is mysterious), so also falls of.

Not much mystery left then, don't you think?

The last remark is, if you call all of existence a mystery, then everything is mysterious and at the same time nothing is mysterious, the word 'mystery' is without meaning then, because then you can't distinguish between something mysterious and something that is not. There is only light because there is dark. There can only be mystery (a phenomena that can not be explained in terms of natural and understood phenomena) because there are phenomena that are fully understood.

But if is satisfies you, call life a mystery, an adventure, or anything you please!

 

[wuliheron]

Existence is not supernatural, and existence does not fullfill any of your criteria, I'm affraid.

You are trapped into thinking that what is true for all members of a group, must be true for the group itself. You cannot place the laws of causality outside the existing material world they don't have meaning there, material existence is an eternal process, the process itself consists of endless excercises of the law of cause-and-effect, so existence is causality.

I recommend you check into the "hotel paradox" of infinity.

1. Existence (material existence) is not 'outside' the natural world. The natural world IS existence, without the need for a 'deity'.

2. Natural forces don't violate natural forces, natural forces can only violate our models of natural forces, which means either we have conducted a bad experiment, or we discovered a new behaviour in nature, not previously known

You realize this contradicts your original argument above that I am confusing the group and the members of the group. Which is it? Is existence separate and distinct from from its constituents or not?

The last remark is, if you call all of existence a mystery, then everything is mysterious and at the same time nothing is mysterious, the word 'mystery' is without meaning then, because then you can't distinguish between something mysterious and something that is not. There is only light because there is dark. There can only be mystery (a phenomena that can not be explained in terms of natural and understood phenomena) because there are phenomena that are fully understood.

Existence is evidently a paradox, of course anything I can say about it is paradoxical and contradicts itself. Everything I say is a lie, existence is nonexistence, reality is illusory, etc. These are all variations of the "liar's paradox" which are variations of the paradox of existence.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I recommend you check into the "hotel paradox" of infinity.

We cannot conceive of infinity without contradiction.

Further more, as Kant has shown, the beginning of time is equally well provable as the infinity of time. So, existence therefore is a contradiction.

You realize this contradicts your original argument above that I am confusing the group and the members of the group. Which is it? Is existence separate and distinct from from its constituents or not?

The universe (all of existence) is the group, everything in the universe are it's members. Causality explains how things in the universe are the effects of previous causes. Causality can not be applied to the universe as a whole.

Existence is evidently a paradox, of course anything I can say about it is paradoxical and contradicts itself. Everything I say is a lie, existence is nonexistence, reality is illusory, etc. These are all variations of the "liar's paradox" which are variations of the paradox of existence.

Not pradadox, it is a contradiction. Material existence is in contradiction with itself, which causes it to change/move.
Material existence without change/motion would be incomprehensible.

 

[wuliheron]

Not pradadox, it is a contradiction. Material existence is in contradiction with itself, which causes it to change/move.
Material existence without change/motion would be incomprehensible.

Paradox has different meanings for different people. Broadly it refers to the irrational, inexplicable, self-referential and self-contradictory, or merely contradictory but somehow true. Unfortunately people also have different ideas about exactly what is rational, logical, and true which make defining paradox all that much more difficult. It may be that paradox is ultimately ineffable.

You can assert of course that existence is infinite by default as the "least absurd" explanation, however one absurdity is as good as another one according to which standards you care to use. Especially an absurdity with no evidence to support it. As Zeno and others have demonstrated, existence without change/motion is obviously not any more or less incomprehensible than infinity and may even actually be the same thing-- singularity.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I recommend you check into the "hotel paradox" of infinity.

Do you mean Hilberts hotel?

 

[wuliheron]

Exactly. Essentially you are asserting the paradoxical position that Change is the only constant. If you attempt to work your way around this by piling one infinity on top of another, you run into Hilbert's Hotel paradox which just leads to more absurdities.

Bottom line, all of logic is based upon reductio ad absurdum. This is what I call the "backdoor" approach. Instead of proving something directly, you sneak in the backdoor and prove the alternatives are absurd. In the case of the paradox of existence, like the liar's paradox, every explanation is absurd as Zeno and others have repeatedly demonstrated for thousands of years.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Huh... What's "Hilbert's Hotel" ?

Originally posted by heusdens
Anything IN the universe obeys causal principles (at least to some extent, QM may tell a different story however) but not the universe as a whole.

Oh... really ? Prove it.
The Universe is a system - it is two or more
components with some kind of connection between
themselves. The rest (components & connections)
are probabalistic assumptions.

Originally posted by heusdens
Suppose we have a box with coines in them. I make the following statement about this box of coins. I say: "everything in the box weights less then 1 kilogram".
Now the fact shows up that the coin with the maximum weight is exactly 100 gram. However the weigt of the box of coins minus the weight of the box itself is 2 kilograms, so the coins together weight 2 kilograms.

Is my statement true or not?

You can argue it is true because there is no coin which weights more then 1 kilogram. Each coin weights less then 1 kilogram.
And you can argue that it is false because the weight of all the coins together is more then 1 kilogram.

This is an introduction to the slippery use of language, which is used in the statement "everything came from nothing".

The statement has double meaning, it can either mean that every individual thing came from nothing, i.e. the statement says that is is true for every individual thing that it came from nothing, i.e. it did not come from anything.
Or, alternatively, it can mean to say that everything in totallity came from nothing, i.e. it didn't come from anything.

The first statement is of course false, because of the law of causal effect. The second statement is however true.

This may seem contradictional, but you have to consider that the truthvalue of a statement about all members of a group is not necessarily the same as the truthvalue of a statement about the group itself.

For instance, we can say that every member of a football team has a parent. But the football team itself does not (necesarily) have a parent.

This type of argument, based on this confusion, is often used in defending the existence of a "creator", which in simple forms is the following line of argument: Everything has a cause. The world exists. So, it must have a cause, or been caused by something. Hence, a creator is needed (no creation without creator).

Hmm... What ?!

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Well your intitial statement "everything came from nothing" is a typical example of flawed use of language expressions. It should have been stated like "The universe is uncaused". (we can for reasons of avoiding ambiguity not use the term "everything" for "universe")

I didn't say "everything came from nothing"! That was Eyesee.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Question

Why do we chase our tails?

 

[wuliheron]

We chase our tails because existence is demonstrably paradoxical. What else would you have us do? :0)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Why do we chase our tails?

What are you talking about?

 

[Eyesee]

If existence is eternal, i.e. "things" can't come into existence, then how can "things" exist in the first place? And it's impossible for anyone to look back to eternity so of what use is this point of view even merely as a logical exercise?


OTOh, the fact that "things" exist can be used simply as proof that they came into existence. And to avoid an infinite regression of cause and effect, we merely place our starting point to when there was absolutely nothing in the universe. The question of existence then is resolved.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
If existence is eternal, i.e. "things" can't come into existence, then how can "things" exist in the first place? And it's impossible for anyone to look back to eternity so of what use is this point of view even merely as a logical exercise?


OTOh, the fact that "things" exist can be used simply as proof that they came into existence. And to avoid an infinite regression of cause and effect, we merely place our starting point to when there was absolutely nothing in the universe. The question of existence then is resolved.

Whoah, hold the phone. Why does "existence is eternal" = "'things' can't come into existence"?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say "everything came from nothing"! That was Eyesee.

I see. Well I meant to say The initial statement of this thread. Sorry.