Is it so hard to understand a "word"?
* - N O T H I N G - *is not a set of anything, no potential, no vacuum,
no borders or characteristics just nothin'.
There is 'nothing' in it means an "it" - measureable and sizable.
Folks-talk refers usually to a lack of a material content.
I agree with Bruno: it is just as hard to identify as everything (the zero
vs.infinite - eternity problem) but if one identifies "nothing" it turns
into something identified.
I wrote once a little silly 'ode' about ontology. I started:
"In the beginning there was Nothingness.
And when Nothingness realised it's nothingness
It turned into Somethingness - an explanation..."
and so on, describing 'a' creation story.
JM
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bertrand Russell pointed out long ago that the properties of the
> members of a set need not be properties of the set itself. I.e.,
> everything in the universe may have a cause but the universe - the set
> of all things - need not. We can argue about whether the ontological
> nature of the "set of everything" is physical, mathematical,
> spiritual, sensical (Weinbergism) or some other -al, but the question
> why any such set exists (its cause) has no answer.
>
> The best response is Sidney Morgenbesser's ( sure you all know it):
> "If there were nothing you'd still be complaining!"
>
> On May 5, 3:54 am, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 4, 11:48 am, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, May 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Why would focusing on one issue be a distraction from the other?
> >
> > > Because Human Beings do not have infinite time to deal with, so time
> spent
> > > focusing on issues that Krauss correctly describes as sterile (not
> leading
> > > to new ideas) is time not spent focusing on profound issues that are
> quite
> > > literally infinitely more likely to give birth to new knowledge.
> >
> > That is the same logic that assumes that everyone who downloads a free
> > mp3 is taking money out of the pockets of musicians. It presumes that
> > everyone who wasn't doing one thing would automatically be doing the
> > other.
> >
> > > There are
> > > several ways to define "nothing" but if you insist it means "not even
> > > having the potential to produce something" then contemplating the
> question
> > > "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a obviously a complete
> > > waste of time and does nothing but inflict needless ware and tear on
> > > valuable brain cells.
> >
> > So you agree that it is impossible to have something come from
> > nothing.
> >
> > > However it now looks like if we work very hard
> > > science may actually be able to answer questions like "why there is
> stuff
> > > and not empty space,
> >
> > Not if the answer is just going to be that empty space is full of
> > stuff and stuff is mostly empty space.
> >
> > > why there is space at all, and how both stuff and
> > > space and even the forces we measure could arise from no stuff and no
> > > space". Those are enormously deep questions and that is where we
> should be
> > > spending our limited time, not "impotent and useless" navel gazing.
> >
> > I think of them as incredibly shallow questions. They are like the
> > easy problem of consciousness. Making a big deal out of what terms we
> > use to describe stuffness and non-stuffness. What do you find deep
> > about them?
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Is there some threat of the international science budget being
> siphoned
> > > > off into philosophy?
> >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > Communists? Witches?
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > If the nothing of a vacuum is really full of potentials,
> >
> > > If you insist on the strictest definition of "nothing" which is not
> even
> > > the potential of producing anything, then even God Himself could not
> > > produce something from nothing; and this line of thought is quite
> clearly
> > > leading precisely nowhere.
> >
> > That's why it's complete hype to claim that the universe comes from
> > nothing. It's a slogan to sell books.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > how is it really different from stuff?
> >
> > > You want to know how the potential is any different from the actual? As
> > > Krauss says in his book (which you have not read)
> >
> > I haven't read the Koran either, but I get the gist.
> >
> > > that's like asking how
> > > the potential human being any random male and female have of producing
> > > together is any different from a real flesh and blood person. Your
> problem
> > > is that your brain is caught in a infinite loop trying to figure out
> how a
> > > nothing without even the potential to produce something can
> nevertheless
> > > produce something.
> >
> > I'm not stuck in a loop at all. I only point out as a fact that the
> > universe could not come from something. It's a very straightforward
> > argument, which you apparently agree with except that someone has
> > written a book with a title that suggests otherwise. I'm not trying to
> > figure out how something comes from nothing, the book in question is.
> > I understand that causality is something that comes from sense, not
> > the other way around, so I don't have to waste my time redefining
> > 'nothing' to include a proto-universal universe.
> >
> > > If you're too busy spinning your wheels to read
> > > Professor Krauss's book your only hope is to at least try to squeeze
> in a
> > > little time to read the 2 articles I mentioned in my last post and
> repeat
> > > below for your benefit, they're a sort of readers digest condensed
> kiddy
> > > version of the book, but that's far better than "nothing" by any
> meaning of
> > > the word.
> >
> > >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-consolation-of-p.
> ..
> >
> > >
> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-mad...
> >
> > There is nothing surprising in either of these articles.
> >
> > Craig
>
> --
> 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.
