A possible solution to why is there something rather than nothing.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 09:06 pm
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;81479 wrote:
As i have said before. If some one ask me what the sensation of pain is, or how to define pain, then they fail to understand pain. It is no different than a dog that fails to understand general relativity. If you fail to understant what EW is, then you fail to understand.


And, if you fail to understand what proclivity drinks procrastination means, then you fail to understand. And so does everyone.
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 11:07 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;81520 wrote:
And, if you fail to understand what proclivity drinks procrastination means, then you fail to understand. And so does everyone.


Not sure about that. It is not at all the same as an empty world. i can say something about the empty world than "proclivity drinks". I can say that something does not exist in EW that would otherwise be in at least one possible world. EW is one possible world that any world distinquish from it is non-empty. In fact, i can say many more claims about possible worlds than might otherwise have been if i don` t use EW. So by making fun of EW by using "proclivity drinks" you at least have to show how it is used to solve many problems, and how it help us understand more about possible worlds. I mean, any person can make fun of something they do not know. I can learn something about the question of why something exist and not nothing, by thnking of it as talking about the EW with respect to other non empty possible world. It is not an idea i came up with, but i idea that quentin, Nocizk come up with. Surely, they people are much smarter than me. There must be a reason they think the way they do. I think the concept of EW is beneficial to learn, for it solves problems and provide more detail information. BY making fun of it, it shows not such much the the fullest of your ideas, but your own personal character. Honestly, i carry the discussion with the uppermost respect, but i guess you don ` t.

Sorry, but i will not be made fun of, and intimitated by you. If this is the approach you are going to take, then i just have to say "you win", and " i wish you a nice life". I am more into ideas with arguments than intimitations.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 6 Aug, 2009 05:29 am
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;81533 wrote:
. It is not an idea i came up with, but i idea that quentin, Nocizk come up with. Surely, they people are much smarter than me. There must be a reason they think the way they do.


No doubt. The reason is that they are confused. The notion of an empty world makes no sense.
And arguments from authority are no more convincing or valid when the authorities are Nozick and Quentin, than they are when the authorities are Aristotle and Aquinas.

Making fun of a view that you hold is not the same as making fun of you. You ought really to make that distinction.
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Thu 6 Aug, 2009 11:09 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;81575 wrote:
No doubt. The reason is that they are confused. The notion of an empty world makes no sense.
And arguments from authority are no more convincing or valid when the authorities are Nozick and Quentin, than they are when the authorities are Aristotle and Aquinas.

Making fun of a view that you hold is not the same as making fun of you. You ought really to make that distinction.



Like i said before, you can make fun of a view all you want, but this is a useful concept because it solves problems, and at the sametime tell us somethng about possible worlds. I really do not know what to say.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 6 Aug, 2009 03:45 pm
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;81620 wrote:
Like i said before, you can make fun of a view all you want, but this is a useful concept because it solves problems, and at the sametime tell us somethng about possible worlds. I really do not know what to say.


You did not say that at all. You said I was making fun of you. What problem does "empty world" solve? And what does it tell us about possible worlds except that an empty world is not a possible world, because the notion makes no sense?
You need not say anything, and then you will not miss the opportunity to keep quiet.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Thu 6 Aug, 2009 04:23 pm
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;81479 wrote:
As i have said before. If some one ask me what the sensation of pain is, or how to define pain, then they fail to understand pain. It is no different than a dog that fails to understand general relativity. If you fail to understant what EW is, then you fail to understand.


Answer this: Do you consider the EW to be an object, something that would fall under the heading of 'noun'? Or do you consider it to simply be a logical definition with no noun behind it? I would consider the empty set to be the latter (since it makes no philosophical sense to refer to it as an object, Mathematical Platonism is still platonism).

I argue that EW amounts to a 'limit' (as in a mathematical limit). I could call the EW the intersection of all possible worlds (since each world would have an ontological opposite).
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Sat 8 Aug, 2009 11:06 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;81653 wrote:
You did not say that at all. You said I was making fun of you.



You are, but that is not my main concern.

Quote:
What problem does "empty world" solve?



Why is there something rather than nothing?




Quote:
And what does it tell us about possible worlds except that an empty world is not a possible world, because the notion makes no sense?



You see, this is exactly the problem i have about your style. You keep thinking that asking a question advance your case. This is just deceptive in that it presuppose that you need to prove in the first place. This is like a little game for you.



Quote:
You need not say anything, and then you will not miss the opportunity to keep quiet.


Do you mean empty world does make sense?( i am playing your game). I can play your game as well. I can ask a question by presuppose what i need to prove, because it is so much mort smarter by not actually using my brain.Laughing Have a nice time talking to yourself, because i have no intention to talk to you again.

---------- Post added 08-09-2009 at 12:27 AM ----------

Zetetic11235;81659 wrote:
Answer this: Do you consider the EW to be an object, something that would fall under the heading of 'noun'? Or do you consider it to simply be a logical definition with no noun behind it? I would consider the empty set to be the latter (since it makes no philosophical sense to refer to it as an object, Mathematical Platonism is still platonism).

I argue that EW amounts to a 'limit' (as in a mathematical limit). I could call the EW the intersection of all possible worlds (since each world would have an ontological opposite).



Ontology is the study of "what exist". The basic question is "what actually exist". The epistemology is how do you know something exist, or to find justification for our ontogical claims. Every refering names N, refers. In other worlds, 'N' is a name, and N is a object. The existence of N is asserted in our ontology. Why do i go to all the bother of saying all this? Because i stipulated the word 'nothing' as a name that refers to EW. EW is of course asserted as part of my ontolgy. I postulated EW as a object which allows me to refer to it by a name( ie: 'nothing'). I could refer to EW using something else, but that is no good if i want to solve the question: 'why there is something rather than nothing?'.


Now, you can ask why i use the word 'nothing' in this way? Because i have a particular purpose in using it that way. I am well awear that condition certain conditions, the logical form of 'nothing' act as the logical constant 'not'. I don ` t use it that way, because i don` t have a particular use for it in the context of the present discussion.
 
ACB
 
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 06:24 am
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;82015 wrote:
EW is of course asserted as part of my ontolgy. I postulated EW as a object which allows me to refer to it by a name( ie: 'nothing').


But can you simply postulate that? Don't you need to justify it? Couldn't it actually be the case that EW is not an object?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 08:34 am
@ACB,
ACB;82071 wrote:
But can you simply postulate that? Don't you need to justify it? Couldn't it actually be the case that EW is not an object?


He's also positing that it is an object. He is also positing that the idea makes sense. He is a prodigious positor. He got that way because he is so positive. (And I posit that).
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 09:38 am
@ACB,
ACB;82071 wrote:
But can you simply postulate that? Don't you need to justify it? Couldn't it actually be the case that EW is not an object?



The simple answer is yes. It is very often that philosophers postulates something for a particular use. This is not at all uncommon. The justification is always a mean to solve some existing problems.

---------- Post added 08-09-2009 at 10:46 AM ----------

kennethamy;82080 wrote:
He's also positing that it is an object. He is also positing that the idea makes sense. He is a prodigious positor. He got that way because he is so positive. (And I posit that).



Yes, how great. You stop asking presupposed questions, and start doing caricatures. That is wonderful, and people say you need a brain to be fun.
Perhaps there is a possible world in which asking presupposed questions, and making caricatures is doing philosophy, but i would hate to live in such a world.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 12:15 pm
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;82096 wrote:
The simple answer is yes. It is very often that philosophers postulates something for a particular use. This is not at all uncommon. The justification is always a mean to solve some existing problems.

---------- Post added 08-09-2009 at 10:46 AM ----------




Yes, how great. You stop asking presupposed questions, and start doing caricatures. That is wonderful, and people say you need a brain to be fun.
Perhaps there is a possible world in which asking presupposed questions, and making caricatures is doing philosophy, but i would hate to live in such a world.


What are, presupposed questions?
 
ACB
 
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 01:24 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;82115 wrote:
What are, presupposed questions?


Begged questions, presumably.
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 02:22 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;82115 wrote:
What are, presupposed questions?


WoW! why would you ask. You are a master at it. It is call supposing a piece of information you already know(or need to prove), and try to get as far as you can go by asking a "question" about it. You don` t give any "reasons", "justifications". Hell, you don` t even need a brain. Don ` t you know? It is improv philosophy without the "arguments" to go along with it.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 04:22 pm
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;82135 wrote:
WoW! why would you ask. You are a master at it. It is call supposing a piece of information you already know(or need to prove), and try to get as far as you can go by asking a "question" about it. You don` t give any "reasons", "justifications". Hell, you don` t even need a brain. Don ` t you know? It is improv philosophy without the "arguments" to go along with it.


Oh, you mean, question-begging questions. I don't do those. Let me know if you have an example of my doing one.
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 06:24 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;82153 wrote:
Oh, you mean, question-begging questions. I don't do those. Let me know if you have an example of my doing one.


Get the hint, because it is all over the last couple of pages. You obvious have no intention of taking the matter seriously, and all you want is to play your games. The only thing you know is question begging, and painting caricatures. There is no arguments, or justifications. This is not philosophy as i practice it. What you have are little games to waste your time away.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 07:10 pm
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;82184 wrote:
Get the hint, because it is all over the last couple of pages. You obvious have no intention of taking the matter seriously, and all you want is to play your games. The only thing you know is question begging, and painting caricatures. There is no arguments, or justifications. This is not philosophy as i practice it. What you have are little games to waste your time away.


Any examples?......
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 07:23 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;82194 wrote:
Any examples?......


How about this:

Quote:

And what does it tell us about possible worlds except that an empty world is not a possible world, because the notion makes no sense?


This is exactly the kind of games you are into. lacking any substantive content. There is not standard formulation of your thesis. No arguments in support of your thesis. There is no structure to anything you do. It is like you just want to "talk".
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 10 Aug, 2009 06:04 am
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;82197 wrote:
How about this:



This is exactly the kind of games you are into. lacking any substantive content. There is not standard formulation of your thesis. No arguments in support of your thesis. There is no structure to anything you do. It is like you just want to "talk".



That is not begging the question. The notion of an empty world does not make any sense. And you have not shown it does. Next?

(Possible worlds are defined by their content. But empty worlds would have no content. Therefore, no empty world is a possible world. QED).
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Mon 10 Aug, 2009 04:01 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;82276 wrote:
And you have not shown it does. Next?


That is begging the question to the issue i have given my reasons for many times. You either response with a begging question, or a caricature of my view. This is not philosophy. These are non-constructive responses to prolong the discussion and make people talk you.

Quote:

Possible worlds are defined by their content. But empty worlds would have no content. Therefore, no empty world is a possible world. QED



This is the first argument you gave in the last 7 pages after i exposed your tricks. What now?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 10 Aug, 2009 04:29 pm
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;82380 wrote:
That is begging the question to the issue i have given my reasons for many times. You either response with a begging question, or a caricature of my view. This is not philosophy. These are non-constructive responses to prolong the discussion and make people talk you.




This is the first argument you gave in the last 7 pages after i exposed your tricks. What now?


What now is that you have been refuted.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/27/2020 at 06:18:17