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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31 January 2012 22:55, John Mikes <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [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. > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
