On 31 January 2012 22:55, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: I agree with what you say, John. When we reach such a pitch of puzzlement about our very categories of thought it's a sure sign that we're bumping into some human limitation or other. Temporary or permanent, who knows? But still, I'd opt for puzzlement, delusive or not, rather than dismiss, trivialise or deny it.
As to what "exists", it all depends on context, but when it comes to sharing our theorising I agree with Bruno: we must state our assumptions and draw defensible conclusions from them. Mere statements of belief may be personally consoling but are a barrier to communication and the joint development of ideas. David > David Nyman wrote: > -------- > On 25 January 2012 19:46, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >> Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a spacetime vacuum. One >> may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to deny >> even >> potential would be to deny that anything can exist. >> > But surely that denial is precisely the point of the "philosopher's > nothing"? I'm not sure why you would say that pointing to a "negative > potential" for anything to exist is incoherent (illogical, > inconsistent, or whatever). Of course it's a dead-end, explanatorily > useless, a mystery if you will. Given that there is something, some > aspect of that something will always have to be accepted as given. > That's the nature of explanation; the philosopher's nothing is what > you get if you push explanation past its breaking point. > David > --------------- > David, it is still our 'human' (restricted?) logic and capabilities. > Brent (whom I esteem a lot) concluded: > >>> That's the philsopher's idea of 'nothing', but it's not clear that it's >>> even >> coherent. Our concepts of 'nothing' obviously arise from the idea of >> eliminating 'something' until no 'something' remains. It is hardly fair >> to >> criticize physicists for using a physical, operational concept of nothing. >> Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a spacetime vacuum. One >> may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to deny >> even >> potential would be to deny that anything can exist. >> >> Brent > -------------------- > Why should "philosophers" be 'smarter' than you or me? granted, they > specialize in > a different domain, but still use 'human' (i.e. restricted) logic. > What I would like to 'change' in your remark is the replacement of the 1st > "given" (that > there is something) by "assuming", closer to my agnostic wording. Also, the > 2nd > "given" is suspect: acceptble as we think it is 'given'. > Dead end is in our views, not from the aspects of the infinite complexity we > (= our > world) is part of. "Mystery"? as long as we do not learn the details and > process of it. > The main point is that "nothing' pointing to a hiatus in our limited > knowledge. > (And that pertains to physics as well when one mentions a 'vacuum', > spacetime or any). > Do you have an idea for identifying "exist"? (And I am not talking physics). > > Just rambling > > John M > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 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.
