Regarding the "philosopher's nothing":

This present moment exists, and it has no cause since our universe is a
four dimensional structure (time is a subjective phenomenon).  This
timeless existence of this moment establishes that "nothingness" cannot
exist.  In short: It is an impossible state.  The question then becomes:
"Why should this present moment exist, and what else might also exist?"  So
far, the answer suggested by our latest discoveries and reasoning suggests:
a lot.

Jason

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:07 PM, David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to