On Sep 19, 1:22 pm, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net> wrote: > On 9/19/2011 11:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:27 AM, nihil0 <jonathan.wol...@gmail.com > > <mailto:jonathan.wol...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > This is my first post on the List. I find this topic fascinating and > > I'm impressed with everyone's thoughts about it. I'm not sure if > > you're aware of this, but it has been discussed on a few other > > Everything threads. > > > Norman Samish posted the following to the thread "Tipler Weighs In" on > > May 16, 2005 at 9:24pm: > > > "I wonder if you and/or any other members on this list have an opinion > > about the validity of an article at > > http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilfil.htm > > > Jon, > > > Thank you for your post. I actually came across that page many years > > ago, before joining this list. It is interesting to go over it again > > and I am glad to see it still online. I appreciated the Liebniz quote > > he cites "omnibus ex nihil ducendis sufficit unum" which he translates > > as "For producing everything out of nothing, one principal is > > enough". I searched for this, and also found by John Wheeler: > > > /The Universe had to have a way to come into being out of nothingness. > > ...When we say ï¿½out of nothingnessï¿½ we do not mean out of the vacuum > > of physics. The vacuum of physics is loaded with geometrical structure > > and vacuum fluctuations and virtual pairs of particles. The Universe > > is already in existence when we have such a vacuum. No, when we speak > > of nothingness we mean nothingness: neither structure, nor law, nor > > plan. ...For producing everything out of nothing one principle is > > enough. Of all principles that might meet this requirement of Leibniz > > nothing stands out more strikingly in this era of the quantum than the > > necessity to draw a line between the observer-participator and the > > system under view. ...We take that demarcation as being, if not the > > central principle, the clue to the central principle in constructing > > out of nothing everything. / ï¿½ John A. Wheeler > > > I think Liebniz's words are insightful, but more to the point was when > > he said: > > > "There is an infinity of figures...of minute inclinations....Now, all > > of this detail implies previous or more particular contingents, each > > of which again stands in need of similar analysis to be accounted for, > > so that nothing is gained by such analysis. The sufficient or ultimate > > reason must therefore exist outside the succession of series of > > contingent particulars, infinite though this series be. Consequently, > > the ultimate reason of all things must subsist in a necessary > > substance, in which all particular changes may exist only virtually as > > in its source: this substance is what we call God." > > > He says that the source of our existence is something that has to > > exist, it's existence is a necessary property. Of everything humans > > have discovered, I think mathematical truth most closely fits. It > > seems to insist on its own existence unlike any physical contingency > > or the universe itself. Yet as Bruno has helped to illustrate, the > > universe, or our perceptions, follow from the existence of > > mathematical truth. > > > Jason > > -- > > Hi Jason, > > Very good points and quotes. we might start with the basic > principle that Existence exists. From there we elevate Wheeler's > elaboration of Leibniz "/the necessity to draw a line between the > observer-participator and the system under view/." This active > separation between observer and observed is the key to unlock the > Gordian knot of how does Everything obtains from Nothing. > > Onward! > > Stephen > //
If we understand that our sensory perception is not reporting the same realities that we have deduced through experiment and reason, then I think that we need to consider that this may extend to causality. Our experience of order is a sense, like any other, it can be distorted and disrupted by natural and artificial means. We contribute to our sense of order, and our experience changes to a certain extent according to what we choose to pay attention to. What I'm saying is that this observation suggests that something from nothing is no more or less possible than something from everything. We are not impartial, since we are participating in the universe as a living negentropy rather than an unconscious inanimate object. What we see is phenomena going from simple to complex, from one to many, but what we are is complex to simple, many to one. Our physical existence is pitched toward entropy, a particular fragment of matter representing an unbroken strand of the entire history of the universe. Our consciousness however, aspires toward significance. At it's most inspired, individual consciousness is prescient, telescopically visionary, and an agent for change which is pulled by and pulls others toward the future. It may be the case that from an objective, 3-p point of view, our 1-p subjective experience runs temporally backwards, putting the Big Bang of the universe of physical matter and space at the end of our subjective temporal universe of experience rather than the beginning. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.