On 9 August 2011 18:16, Roger Granet <[email protected]> wrote: > So, when I say that > "non-existence is the complete description of what is present", > by necessity, I'm jumping back and forth between two meanings of > non-existence. The first "non-existence" in the phrase refers to > non-existence itself and "what is present" is our mind's conception of > non-existence. We're stuck having to do this because we exist, but > non-existence itself, and not our mind's conception of non-existence" > doesn't have this dependence.
I've read the above several times and, sadly, I still have no clear idea of what you could possibly mean. You say that: "what is present" is our mind's conception of non-existence. Substituting this in your formulation then gives: "non-existence is the complete description of our mind's conception of non-existence". Is this what you meant to say? If so, I can see why you say it is an "existent state", but I still can't see how you defend such a state as equivalent to "radical absence of all states". Indeed, the two ideas seem in direct contradiction. David > David, > Thanks for the feedback. I'm not suggesting that non-existence/radical > absence contains a property or definition because I agree that it would then > not be non-existence. I'm suggesting that non-existence is the complete > description/definition of what is present and can therefore be considered an > existent state. Also, because we're talking about non-existence, we have to > reify it (by saying "it is", "what is present", etc.) in order to even > discuss it, but non-existence itself doesn't have that property. So, when I > say that > "non-existence is the complete description of what is present", > by necessity, I'm jumping back and forth between two meanings of > non-existence. The first "non-existence" in the phrase refers to > non-existence itself and "what is present" is our mind's conception of > non-existence. We're stuck having to do this because we exist, but > non-existence itself, and not our mind's conception of non-existence" > doesn't have this dependence. > Thanks! > > Roger > > ________________________________ > From: David Nyman <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2011 9:49 AM > Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? > > On 9 August 2011 07:36, Roger <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I always like to distinguish between the >> mind's conception/perception of a thing and the thing itself. So, I'd >> say that a thing can exist even if its properties are unknown to us >> (ie, to our mind's conception of the thing) but those properties have >> to be known, or be part of, the thing itself in order to be properties >> of that thing. I think this is real important in thinking about >> "nothing" or non-existence. Next to our minds, which exist, nothing/ >> non-existence just looks like the lack of existence, or nothing. But, >> non-existence itself, not our mind's conception of non-existence, >> completely describes or defines what is present and is therefore an >> existent state. > > Agreed on the distinction between a conception and what it (may) > ultimately refer to. However, I'm not really convinced of its > centrality in this case. The "nothing" that is here juxtaposed with > "something" is surely intended to rule out any state whatsoever, > including any "properties" or "definitions" thereof. For example, in > the face of such "radical absence", even the truth that "17 is prime" > would be in abeyance (although I suspect Bruno might say that this is > evidence enough that the concept fails to refer). To be sure, given > the brute fact that there IS "something", such radical non-existence > may indeed be excluded as a matter of fact. That is, the IDEA of > "nothing" as the radical absence of any state of affairs whatsoever > may indeed lack any referent in actuality. But notwithstanding this, > any less radical proposal fails to exhaust the concept at its logical > limit (e.g. in your very reliance on the formulation "defines what is > present"). And the dizzying prospect of that ultimate conceptual > limit is, rightly or wrongly, what troubles us when we encounter the > canonical question. > > David > >> Brent, >> >> Thanks for the comment! I always like to distinguish between the >> mind's conception/perception of a thing and the thing itself. So, I'd >> say that a thing can exist even if its properties are unknown to us >> (ie, to our mind's conception of the thing) but those properties have >> to be known, or be part of, the thing itself in order to be properties >> of that thing. I think this is real important in thinking about >> "nothing" or non-existence. Next to our minds, which exist, nothing/ >> non-existence just looks like the lack of existence, or nothing. But, >> non-existence itself, not our mind's conception of non-existence, >> completely describes or defines what is present and is therefore an >> existent state. Thanks! >> >> >> Roger >> >> >> On Aug 8, 1:59 pm, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 8/7/2011 11:40 PM, Roger wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > Hi. I used to post to this list but haven't in a long time. I'm >>> > a biochemist but like to think about the question of "Why is there >>> > something rather than nothing?" as a hobby. If you're interested, >>> > some of my ideas on this question and on "Why do things exist?", >>> > infinite sets and on the relationships of all this to mathematics and >>> > physics are at: >>> >>> >https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/ >>> >>> > An abstract of the "Why do things exist and Why is there something >>> > rather than nothing?" paper is below. >>> >>> > Thank you in advance for any feedback you may have. >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > Sincerely, >>> >>> > Roger Granet >>> > >>> > ([email protected]) >>> >>> > Abstract: >>> >>> > In this paper, I propose solutions to the questions "Why do things >>> > exist?" and "Why is there something rather than nothing?" In regard >>> > to the first question, "Why do things exist?", it is argued that a >>> > thing exists if the contents of, or what is meant by, that thing are >>> > completely defined. >>> >>> Things that are completely defined are mathematical abstractions: like a >>> differentiable manifold or the natural numbers. One might even argue >>> that an essential characteristic of things that exist is that they can >>> have unknown properties. But perhaps I'm misreading what you mean by >>> "defined". Maybe you just mean that things that exist either have a >>> property or not, independent of our knowledge. So Vic either has a mole >>> on his left side or he doesn't, even though we don't know which; whereas >>> is makes no sense to even wonder whether Sherlock Holmes has a mole on >>> his left side. >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > A complete definition is equivalent to an edge or >>> > boundary defining what is contained within and giving substance and >>> > existence to the thing. In regard to the second question, "Why is >>> > there something rather than nothing?", "nothing", or non-existence, is >>> > first defined to mean: no energy, matter, volume, space, time, >>> > thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc.; and no minds to think >>> > about this lack-of-all. It is then shown that this non-existence >>> > itself, not our mind's conception of non-existence, is the complete >>> > description, or definition, of what is present. That is, no energy, >>> > no matter, no volume, no space, no time, no thoughts, etc., in and of >>> > itself, describes, defines, or tells you, exactly what is present. >>> > Therefore, as a complete definition of what is present, "nothing", or >>> > non-existence, is actually an existent state. So, what has >>> > traditionally been thought of as "nothing", or non-existence, is, when >>> > seen from a different perspective, an existent state or "something". >>> > Said yet another way, non-existence can appear as either "nothing" or >>> > "something" depending on the perspective of the observer. Another >>> > argument is also presented that reaches this same conclusion. >>> > Finally, this reasoning is used to form a primitive model of the >>> > universe via what I refer to as "philosophical engineering". >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
