On 9/19/2011 2:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:22 PM, "Stephen P. King" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 9/19/2011 11:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:27 AM, nihil0 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 “out of nothingness” 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. / —
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
Thanks Stephen, I thought of another reason for the existence of
something rather than nothing,, this one being more from logic than
mathematics:
If nothing is defined as "no structure, plan, or law", as Wheeler
suggested, then for nothing to ever result from that nothing requires
the logical principle that nothing comes from nothing. So minimally,
some principles of logic exist. Further, if no laws exist, there is
no prohibition against the existence of other structures. I think
what Wheeler really meant to say is that there is one law: No
structures exist. We must then ask ourselves why we think a
meta-reality having this one law is preferred to a meta-reality having
no laws?
A meta-reality with no laws permits the existence of any structure
that can exist. And as Liebniz suggested "everything that is possible
demands to exist".
Jason
Hi Jason,
To add more fuel to this fire, I invite all to read Wheeler's essay
found here:
what-buddha-said.net/library/pdfs/*wheeler*_*law*_*without*_*law*.pdf
It was the suggestion by Leibniz that you quoted here which
inspired my claim that Existence is necessary possibility. We could also
say: "Nature explores all possibilities."
Onward!
Stephen
--
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.
