Why something rather than nothing?

[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.

https://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.

 

[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.

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

And how do you define 'exist'?

= 'persist'

 

[Einbeermug]

= vagueness

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.