On 9/22/2011 1:18 AM, Roger Granet wrote:
Everyone,
Hi. My comments on all of today's comments :) happy on this
thread are below:
o In regard to Jon's below comment:
>Pearce later concludes that "if, in all, there is 0, i.e no (net)
>properties whatsoever, then there just isn't anything substantive
>which needs explaining." Jason and Roger, are you satisfied by this
>explanation of why there doesn't need to be a meta-explanation of why
>anything exists?
I'm not real sure what you're trying to get at? I'm okay with not
needing an explanation of why so called "nothing" is a starting point,
but I think we need an explanation for why this so called "nothing" is
actually "something" (aka, the empty set). That's what I was trying
to do in my paper. I thought that trying to figure out why anything
exists was our whole point? But, I'm probably misunderstanding
something here?
o In regard to Jon's point that:
>Also, I think Pearce's idea that reality is constituted (somehow)
by empty sets nested in other empty sets
>supports the following idea of Roger's: "the existent state that
is what has been previously called "absolute non->existence" has
the unique property of being able to reproduce itself." Perhaps
you guys are saying the same thing >just in different words.
I would totally agree. My only concern with people saying that the
process of getting the integers from nested empty sets can be used as
a way for our universe to come into existence is that these people
usually don't say what the mechanism is that's doing the nesting. One
thing I like about my model is that it provides a mechanism for doing
this nesting that's inherent in the property of the existent state
that used to be called "nothing". This mechanism being that if this
first existent state is there, then there's the "complete lack-of-all"
next to it. This "complete lack-of-all" next to it also completely
defines the entirety of what is there and is thus also an existent
state. This process continues ad infinitum to create more and more
existent states (aka, nested empty sets) that constitute the existence
around us.
[SPK]
Hi Roger,
First let me thank you for joining us in these discussions. new
ideas are always a good thing as they provoke thought.
I think that the idea of a plurality of possible positions, given
some X, and a sequence of places where X could be next, given some
initial location, are interchangeable, but it seems to me that any
mechanism that would induce one nesting could be seen as generating the
potential of many, and thus a plurality of possibilities, if the
generator of the nestings is not seperate from the impulsive or dynamic
aspect that is implicit in the transitions from some initial state into
some successive state. Basically, if their is a reason to not remain
eternally in one state then all possible sequences can be induced from
this 'potential' to not remain fixed. (I am using the word "induce" as
it is used in electronics, where some change induces some other.)
o In regard to the idea that so called "nothing" contains all
possibilities, I don't think this is right because:
- Let's say you have some initial spherical state X and that nothing
exists other than that state. There are no locations/positions other
than that state X. Now, let's say that this state can create more
identical, existent, spherical states all around it. We might think
that there's an infinite number of possible locations/positions for
these new states to be formed in around initial state X. But, this
is incorrect because there are no locations/positions around the first
state until /after/ these new states are created. Only once these new
states are created are the new locations/positions created and only
then can we say, after the fact and incorrectly, that these new states
could have been created in any different position. So, I think the
idea of saying that nothing has an infinite number of possibilities in
it is incorrect because it's really our minds that our putting these
possibilities into this so called nothing, after the fact.
Since it is stipulated that the initial state is spherical and
there is some notion that there exists reasons or mechanism that this
initial state is not fixed and permanent, does this alone not at least
suggest that there is a possibility or potential for "new locations"? I
think that I basically agree with your point but my argument would run
something like: Since there is nothing, nothing follows. The idea that
Nothingness has an infinite or even an indefinite number of
possibilities seems to to argued by inverting an already given
monotonically increasing sequence and "running it back" to the initial
state given the ordering implicit in the sequence. This is a bit of a
cheat since it starts out with Something and subtracts back to a
Nothing. It seems similar to a /*Post hoc ergo propter hoc*/ fallacy.
- It's very important in this whole area to distinguish between our
mind's conception of "nothing", in which it seems like there are
infinite possibilities, and "nothing" itself, in which neither our
minds nor infinite possibilities are there. "Nothing" itself is what
we need to focus on, I think.
[SPK]
I agree, it seems that a lot of people take the Nothing as if it
where the Zero of a number line and assume that the ordering of the
number line is implicit in the zero. Not to say that this is not a valid
concept, but if we are going to use this idea then I think it is
necessary to show the necessity of that assumption.
o Whatever people decide for themselves about these issues, I think in
the end that there has to be some initial existent state that has some
inherent properties that allow it to reproduce itself, create energy
and create the larger existence (ie, our universe) we live in. This
initial state, its properties and the model for creating existence out
of them has to be internally consistent, consistent with what's
currently known and eventually be able to make some testable
predictions. This is how philosophy can transition into science,
IMHO. The people in the digital philosophy/cellular automata area are
trying to do this, and this is what I've tried to do in my paper and
what I'm still working on. Obviously, we all still have a long way to
go, but I think it's important that we don't get too distracted and
that we "keep our eyes on the prize".
[SPK]
Question: Does not the concept of "initial state" itself not imply
a "next state", otherwise what makes it "initial" in the first place?
Semantics are a big problem in this... What about eternal process where
there is no "beginning" or "initial" state at all, but rather there is a
successor given *any* selected state. My concern is that we seem to
ignore the fact that postulating by fiat an "initial" state makes that
state "special" and that "special" aspect requires strong reasons to be
taken as coherent in an explanatory model or cosmogony.
Onward!
Stephen
Thank you!
Roger
https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/why-things-exist-something-nothing
--
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.
