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

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

vectorcube
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 03:13 am
@ACB,
ACB;82618 wrote:
A world cannot be empty if we live in it.


Where is your argument? Why is a EW not a possible world? What would be an argument that an EW is not a possible world?




Quote:
Is this necessarily true? Must a thing be either logically contradictory or logically possible? Aren't there other alternatives? E.g. a concept can be ill-defined or incoherent, thus having no logical status at all.


yes, I do think EW is a possible world. I don ` t think the concept is ill-defined, or incoherent

---------- Post added 08-12-2009 at 04:27 AM ----------

---------- Post added 08-12-2009 at 04:30 AM ----------

BrightNoon wrote:
Some people seem to be arguing that 'nothing' does exist in some fashion because is it possible-conceivable


I think you have it confused with what possible worlds are. This is a completely technical matter so i can understand your confusion. The idea of possible worlds is postulated in modern philosophy in an attempt to reduce modal talks to non-modal talk(ie: categorical claims) by quantifications over entities we know known as possible worlds. These worlds are used to analyze modal notions like "could be", and "must be".

---------- Post added 08-12-2009 at 04:36 AM ----------

Aedes;82662 wrote:
What is the point of pontificating about nothingness unto itself? This is the realm where metaphysics descends into meaninglessness. Nothingness is only meaningful as a counterposition to something, anything. Taoism is THE philosophy of nothingness, and it is very self-consciously built on the something-nothing relationship.




I have no idea what you are saying here.
 
ACB
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 04:42 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;82491 wrote:
The issue is whether "nothing" is a referring word, like, "cat". Or whether it is a non-referring term like, "although". Does the word, "although" refer to anything? What is an although? Not all words are referring words.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 06:47 am
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;82701 wrote:
I have no idea what you are saying here.
You have concentrated on "nothing" as a natural state.

I disagree with this. I think that in every respect by which we apprehend "nothing", it's always understood as a counterposition to "something". It connotes material relativity, not material fact.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 08:45 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;82744 wrote:
You have concentrated on "nothing" as a natural state.

I disagree with this. I think that in every respect by which we apprehend "nothing", it's always understood as a counterposition to "something". It connotes material relativity, not material fact.


But, if nothing is a natural state, then how could nothing (whatever that may be) be a natural state? And, you seem to be talking about the word, "nothing" (since you place it in quotes). How could a word be a natural state? It makes no sense.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 09:46 am
@vectorcube,
Quote:
Is it really a duality? Think about it. If a world is defined by the stuff in it, then a empty world would not be a world. If so, then where is the duality between something and nothing? Similarly, take the property of charge particles. There is a duality between positive change, and negative change. Do you think this duality is intricsic to the charge particle, or just a man-made convention? In this case, we cannot just expect to randomly naming something, because the charge nature of particles is instrinsic to the particle disregarding how we label it.


Did you even read what I wrote?

The absence of light is darkness, darkness does not exist of itself, it just is the lack of light. This is considered by US to be a duality but I did not say that duality is an actual thing but instead something by which we categorize the world by. The underline reality is that all things are just one and the same thing, energy. Therefore the opposite of something is nothing by which they are exactly the same thing. In other words the duality of existence and non-existence.

Charged particles are nothing different that what I just described. For convention and understanding both positive and negative are distinguished for practical reasons but there is no such thing as a negative charge, it is just the inverse of a positive charge. In all actuality a negative charge is just the same energy in either a different motion or different state but still the same energy regardless.

 
ACB
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 02:17 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;82781 wrote:
In all actuality a negative charge is just the same energy in either a different motion or different state but still the same energy regardless.

Yes, but there is also such a thing as a zero charge (an uncharged particle). That is different.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 02:24 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;82765 wrote:
But, if nothing is a natural state, then how could nothing (whatever that may be) be a natural state? And, you seem to be talking about the word, "nothing" (since you place it in quotes). How could a word be a natural state? It makes no sense.
All will become clear if you actually read what you've quoted, which you seem not to have bothered yourself to do.

I did not ever say that I think that nothing is a natural state.

I did not ever say that the word "nothing" is a natural state.

I said that I disagree with the contention that nothing is a natural state.

I said that the concept we describe with the word "nothing" is meaningful only counterposed against "something" or "anything", so as a statement of relativity it cannot be a natural state unto itself.

I discuss what nothing connotes. Not what it is.
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 02:31 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;82696 wrote:
The fact that the idea of X exists, in no way means that X exists.


I agree and never said otherwise.

Quote:
The idea of unicorn exists. Unicorns do not exist.


Agreed.

Quote:
And, neither does it mean that the the idea exists in a "different way".


Yes, it does. When we say that the idea of a unicorn exists, we are using the word 'exists' in a difference sense than when we say that horses exist. Some people would say the difference is that the former exists mentally, the other exists in physical reality (external reality), but I accounted for the difference phenomenologically.

Quote:
In this case, the idea exists, but what it is the idea of, does not exist. Period. But, I don't think that even the idea of nothing exists. The word, "nothing" certainly does exists, but it does not follow that the idea of nothing exists. And if the best explanation that can be given of the notion of the idea of nothing is this explanation in term of an empty world, then the notion of the idea of nothing is in real trouble.


The idea of nothing certainly does exist, albeit a confused one, but an idea does not have to rational to exist. Do the ideas which are expressed as 'or' or 'but' or 'although' not exist because they aren't associated with clearly defined spatio-temporal objects? No, they exist simply because they are associated with a mental image of some kind.

---------- Post added 08-12-2009 at 04:37 PM ----------

vectorcube;82701 wrote:
I think you have it confused with what possible worlds are. This is a completely technical matter so i can understand your confusion. The idea of possible worlds is postulated in modern philosophy in an attempt to reduce modal talks to non-modal talk(ie: categorical claims) by quantifications over entities we know known as possible worlds. These worlds are used to analyze modal notions like "could be", and "must be".


I think you're right. I don't quite understand what you mean by 'possible worlds' in a technical sense: i.e. if in effect it means anything other than what it does in common usage. So perhaps my argument does not apply to your use of 'possible worlds.' In any case, the argument I'm using applies to the notion of possibility itself, and how it differs from that of actuality.
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 03:23 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;82744 wrote:
You have concentrated on "nothing" as a natural state.


I don `t, but the explication from nozick do.


I in fact look at the general question of "why x, rather than Y", by interpret it as a modal claim, and reduce to talk of possible worlds, and by stipulation the name 'nothing' as refering to empty world(EW), where EW is a possible world.


Quote:

I disagree with this. I think that in every respect by which we apprehend "nothing", it's always understood as a counterposition to "something". It connotes material relativity, not material fact




I don ` t see this as being anything related to me at all.

Are you concern with the philosophy of language? Are you concern with referential 'names', or the "logical form"( Ie: truth conditions) ?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 03:28 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;82830 wrote:



Yes, it does. When we say that the idea of a unicorn exists, we are using the word 'exists' in a difference sense than when we say that horses exist. Some people would say the difference is that the former exists mentally, the other exists in physical reality (external reality), but I accounted for the difference phenomenologically.





But that ideas exist "in the mind" (whatever that means) although horses just exist (period) doesn't mean that the term "exists" means something different when said of ideas than when said of horses. The term, "exists" means exactly the same thing. Only in the first case it ideas exist in the mind; and in the second case, horses exist. In other words, there are ideas, and there are horses. (Never mind about the word, "exists", just substitute the phrase, "there are" or "there is". It is just that different kinds of things (ideas or horses) exist. And, it may be that we discover that they exist in different ways, but that does not mean that they exist in different ways. "X exists" only means (in all cases) that that that certain properties are instantiated by X.
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 03:46 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;82781 wrote:


Did you even read what I wrote?



Perhaps you think you say more than you actually did.


Quote:

The absence of light is darkness, darkness does not exist of itself, it just is the lack of light. This is considered by US to be a duality but I did not say that duality is an actual thing but instead something by which we categorize the world by.


As i was saying about fundemental particles. Things do have intrinsic properties, or peoperties that exist independent of how we name it( say the probabilitistic peoperties of a quantum particles). This is enough to show a contradiction to your universal claim that everything is a naming convention.

Quote:

The underline reality is that all things are just one and the same thing, energy.


Energy? Let` s be more precise. What you perhaps have in mind is the energy of a system S, and the time evolution of S given by the wavefunction W. So what about energy? Where is your wavefunction, or the thing the summerize your system? Give me details!


Quote:
Therefore the opposite of something is nothing by which they are exactly the same thing. In other words the duality of existence and non-existence.


I don` t understand you here.

Existence is not a property of particulars. In modern philosophy, the word existence is represent by the logical particle ( say E), that quantifies over some specific domains (say O). where x is the variable that range over O, quantified by E. denoted by Ex in O. Be more precise! What are you talking about?


Quote:


In all actuality a negative charge is just the same energy in either a different motion or different state but still the same energy regardless.


I don` t understand.
What i was saying was about the dispositional properties of changed particles. What is this got to do with anything?

---------- Post added 08-12-2009 at 04:52 PM ----------

BrightNoon;82830 wrote:




I think you're right. I don't quite understand what you mean by 'possible worlds' in a technical sense: i.e. if in effect it means anything other than what it does in common usage. So perhaps my argument does not apply to your use of 'possible worlds.' In any case, the argument I'm using applies to the notion of possibility itself, and how it differs from that of actuality.



Talk of possibilities and actualities are modal talks that is reductive to talk of quantification over possible worlds. I am not really sure your argument.
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 05:55 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;82844 wrote:
And, it may be that we discover that they exist in different ways, but that does not mean that they exist in different ways.


Is that what you meant to say?

In any case, what does it mean for something to exist? How would you define 'to exist?' It seems to me that the word is used to refer to two distinct states of affairs, represented by the horse and the idea of the unicorn: i.e. what we might call physical existence and mental existence respectively. You would not answer 'how do you know that the horse exists?' with the same sort of evidence that you would use to answer 'how do you know that the idea of the unicorn exists?'
 
ACB
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 06:39 pm
@BrightNoon,
I think this dispute over the word "exist" is a linguistic quibble. A word can have a common core of meaning in all its uses, but differences of detail from one use to another. For example, the meaning of the word "ride" in "I ride on a horse" and "I ride on a bus" is the same in some ways but different in others.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 09:55 pm
@ACB,
ACB;82878 wrote:
I think this dispute over the word "exist" is a linguistic quibble. A word can have a common core of meaning in all its uses, but differences of detail from one use to another. For example, the meaning of the word "ride" in "I ride on a horse" and "I ride on a bus" is the same in some ways but different in others.


It is certainly linguistic, but whether it is a quibble is another matter. Anyway, you were the one who said that "exist" means different things when applied to ideas, and when applied to horses. Maybe you had better explain how it means something different in those two cases.After all, if I said that "exists" means something different when applied to a female horse rather than when applied to a male horse, would you agree, and say that was a quibble? Just how do we tell what a difference in meaning is; and whether the difference is a quibble or not?
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 10:48 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;82895 wrote:
It is certainly linguistic, but whether it is a quibble is another matter. Anyway, you were the one who said that "exist" means different things when applied to ideas, and when applied to horses. Maybe you had better explain how it means something different in those two cases.After all, if I said that "exists" means something different when applied to a female horse rather than when applied to a male horse, would you agree, and say that was a quibble? Just how do we tell what a difference in meaning is; and whether the difference is a quibble or not?


The use of 'exist' in 'a horse exists' and in 'the idea of a unicorn exists' is different, but not because the items in question are different; i.e. the same difference is not evidence between 'a male horse exists' and 'a female horse exists.' A male and a female horse both exist in what we might call objective, external, or physical reality. Their existence can be known from touching them, or smelling them. 'The idea of a unicorn' exists only in the mind, it cannot be touched, smelled, ridden, etc. That is the difference.

Like I said before though, I don't think we need to base the distinction between actual and possible-imagined on the existence of an external reality; it can be accounted for phenomenologically. But that's another issue I suppose. First, we need to come to an agreement about this damn horse and unicorn-idea.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 12:51 am
@vectorcube,
vectorcube, i don't really feel like meeting each of your responses individually but instead just want to mention that all I was pointing out was the appearance of duality when often times it really is not dual in any sense of the word.

My whole post was about energy, nothing specific about particles or atomic charge. Just like how we only see with our eyes a small range of photons but the range at which photons exist is very broad. What separates or distinguishes one photon that perhaps we can see from another photon in which we can not see? There is only one difference and that is, energy.

So my point again is to make the claim that nothing and something are just states of energy and inverse energy. Nothing special, nothing too hard to comprehend. Just like darkness is just less light (or absence of light).
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 01:42 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;82910 wrote:
I was pointing out was the appearance of duality when often times it really is not dual in any sense of the word.



Even if it is not relevant?


Quote:

My whole post was about energy, nothing specific about particles or atomic charge.


No. If you use the word "energy", then you are bring in ideas from physics. This means provide a detail explications of causal laws, and associated physical ideas that is relevant to the discussion if necessary. Energy is not a single concept. The word "Energy" is always used in the context of a physical system( field, configuration etc).

Eg:
Energy associated to the configuration of the system due to gravitational potential energy.

The effects that energy-mass has on the near by spacetime( equations of general relativity).

The energy of a quantum state.

etc



Quote:
Just like how we only see with our eyes a small range of photons but the range at which photons exist is very broad. What separates or distinguishes one photon that perhaps we can see from another photon in which we can not see? There is only one difference and that is, energy.


I don` t understand your example, and i have no idea what this got to do with energy. What you see, and what you cannot see has to do with your perceptual capacity. You are throwing the word "energy" in for no good reason.


Quote:


So my point again is to make the claim that nothing and something are just states of energy and inverse energy.


There is no energy in nothing. Not even "inverse energy" whatever it is. I can give you examples of something that is not energy, but still something. A world with no mass or energy, but flat Space-time would still be something. This is a possible world for it is complete consistent with general relativity. Mass-energy, and space-time are separate ontological entities. They are fundamental, and thus independent of our naming conventions. This is enough to show that not everything is energy, because space-time is not energy according to our best scientific theory.
 
Serena phil
 
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 05:03 am
@vectorcube,
To assume that nothing can be defined as total depletion of mass, energy, space and time, "nothing" would be placed in the most simplest state conceivable. Something is more of a natural state than nothing, given that its probability is greater than nothing's. For instance, theoretical models such as the the inflation theory of the early universe indicates a small but stable system which often spontaneously transforms into a more complex system.

But if nothing is as simple as it gets, stability would be expected. However, like the inflationary theory, a natural transition of nothing-into-something would be natural and without the requirement of an external agent. The 'instability' of nothing could put more emphasis on the presence of something.
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 05:25 am
@Serena phil,
Serena;82931 wrote:
Something is more of a natural state than nothing, given that its probability is greater than nothing's.


Then you don` t understand what is nothing.


Quote:

For instance, theoretical models such as the the inflation theory of the early universe indicates a small but stable system which often spontaneously transforms into a more complex system.


Not inflation theory, but but the uncertain principle.
Empty space, virtual particles, fields, and space-time are all something.

Quote:

But if nothing is as simple as it gets, stability would be expected.


Don` t make sense to me.

Quote:
However, like the inflationary theory, a natural transition of nothing-into-something would be natural and without the requirement of an external agent.


No. Inflationary theory say that the universe begin with a tiny bit of space with a non-zero potential fleld. That tiny field is not nothing.

Quote:
The 'instability' of nothing could put more emphasis on the presence of something.


To use the word "Instability" invokes a potential energy function of a physical system. Tell me. What is this physical system? and where did you get this potential energy function from?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 05:37 am
@vectorcube,
vectorcube, are you sure you really wanted this?

I kept using light the whole time, so would you agree that a photon has a wavelength? What determines the wavelength?

There is an inverse relationship between the wavelength of the light and energy of a photon. Wow amazing! "That is what Krumple already said previously." If only there were some sort of math to go along with it. We do, "No way! He's making stuff up again, isn't he?"

energy E is equal to Planck's constant h times the speed of light c over λ lambda or in this case the wavelength.

What does this mean? Well it means that the wavelength actually determines the color you see. If you have a low energy wavelength then the wavelength is long and the light becomes more red. If the energy of the wavelength is high then the wavelength is short and the light becomes more blue.

See a reoccurring theme here? Energy?

There are points in the wavelength that the human eye can not see. We happen to fall almost in the middle of the known wavelength scale spectrum. I can't recall the actual percentage but it's something around five percent of all photons are actually visible to the human eye.

Quote:
I don` t understand your example, and i have no idea what this got to do with energy. What you see, and what you cannot see has to do with your perceptual capacity. You are throwing the word "energy" in for no good reason.


It only seems like no good reason to you, because you are not understanding.

Quote:
There is no energy in nothing.


This is not entirely accurate once again.

Quote:
This is enough to show that not everything is energy, because space-time is not energy according to our best scientific theory.


Well here is the question then, can matter exist without time? If time and matter are interwoven then they are not mutually exclusive. If they are not mutually exclusive then by all means matter/energy effect time. But where have you heard that before?

Are you sure you want to keep playing this game?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/26/2020 at 12:32:12