RE: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Mon, 05 Jan 2015 01:08:11 -0800 

 

 

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 8:47 PM

 

Chris,

 

       I have nothing important to say! :-)  Nothing and something are kind of 
good areas for puns, double entendres and jokes.  After all, Jerry Seinfeld had 
a whole show about nothing!

>Roger – you have much to say about nothing [just joking]

 

Kind of good? 

Roger, it’s a friggen gold mine; never figured it out ;)  but people love to 
laugh about nothing J

More than one adept has said that laughter about nothing can be the key that 
opens the way to everything!

And, there is nothing wrong with laughing about nothing, cause nothing cares :)

 

 

    You mentioned:

>I agree with the distinction you make between nothing arrived at through the 
>negative process of removing everything that >exists until nothing is left 
>versus the nothing *that is* everything.

>Further down, if I follow you, you are making the point that if we are 
>speaking about the *nothing that is the set of >everything there is* then even 
>if this is an empty set, by virtue of a set being something – a conceptual 
>entity – then even >the absolutely empty universal set {} exists as a 
>conceptual entity at least.

>Is that a fair recap of your intent; or am I off the mark?

>>I think that's a good recap of my intent.  If we can visualize the "absolute 
>>lack-of-all" where all things traditionally thought to exist, including our 
>>minds doing the imagining, that nothingness would be everything there is.  

 

As a thought experiment it is hard to put oneself into the perspective of 
imagining the *absolute lack-of-all* because, in this case, the observer doing 
the observing is also paradoxically non-existent. And in the case of one’s own 
self, especially, achieving this perspective is devilishly hard thing to do… 
the self always strains to creep back in from some corner or hidden crevice of 
the contemplating mind. There is a lot of value -- in my experience -- from 
making an honest (with oneself) good faith attempt… it is like riding a 
unicycle backwards on your hands, instead of your feet… so not an easy trick to 
master, but my feeling is that the attempt is worthy and may (in a ready brain) 
possibly be mind-expanding. Identity, after all, can become its own prison, and 
laughter about nothing can sometimes lead to a realization of nothing, which is 
something like nothing else can ever be and is a perfect antidote to the 
identity doldrums! 

 

but I digress.

 

>>And, then as you say, I think everything there is is a grouping defining what 
>>is contained within and therefore an existent entity.  A set is also a 
>>grouping defining what is contained within, so this situation would be 
>>similar to the empty set.  I think this fundamental existent entity similar 
>>to the empty set is the fundamental unit of our physical universe.

 

The empty set itself – especially when viewed as a dynamic computational entity 
could provide that first spark to jump start the engine of everything… so 
essentially agreeing with you on this view. 

It also has an auto-catalytic nature that makes it appealing for me as well, as 
being the prime first mover of everything from nothing. The set is a priori 
defined, by being the container of nothing; there is no need to invent it e.g. 
it auto-catalyzes itself because it is nothing 

This is the specific part I still have some problems with, because though the 
set is a pure conceptual entity, it never the less is also imbued with a rich 
set of operations and properties. Even the empty set is a non-trivial 
conceptual entity. 

Part of me says that one cannot exclude that there may exist some even more 
fundamental base conceptual entity (itself also naturally auto-emergent from 
nothing) from which the set itself is emergent. 

In pure nothing – a different beast as we both agree from the notion of what is 
left when everything is removed – the container e.g. the set only can exist if 
nothing gains perspective on itself. The set arises naturally from nothing 
because it is a priori the container, but perhaps only because perspective 
arose as the auto-catalyzing agent to enable nothing to obtain self-perspective 
and self-realize it is contained… and then from the concept of the container to 
set operations. 

This is where I feel the need for a basic root set of some simple arithmetic 
operations, summation etc. to enable longer, and increasingly self-referential 
as well as recursive equations. Multiplication can be expressed in terms of 
summation, subtraction in terms of summation plus negation (e.g. negative 
summation), division in terms of subtraction, termination predicate and an 
accumulator… and so on.

With just the two simple operations of summation and negation plus the implicit 
operation of equation (‘=’), a rich set of follow on emergent operations can be 
derived. Combining these simple operations with the container things can start 
to get interesting 

Maybe a series like this:

0

0=0 leading to 

0={0} and then onward to: 0={0}= {0}+{0} = {{0}, {0}+{0}} etc.

Or as Bruno put it: 0, s(0), s(s(0)),

Very similar, in my view, except more focused on the concept of the basic 
minimal set of operations (if I understand his view)

I am reminded of Bruno’s rather poetic description, on an earlier thread… 
speaking about the emergence of reality from this pure nothing out of simple 
self-referential and infinitely recursive summation  “Then all the rest, God 
included, is part of a persistent number hallucination, but "hallucination" 
should not be used as "unreal", because the hallucination is real, and is what 
makes our lives, and there is no reason to dismiss them at all. ”

 

Beautifully put IMO… chasing down the lair where hides this hallucination is 
the greatest hunt of them all. Well at least for the rare bird that sees 
something worth hunting in nothing.

 

 

    Also, you mentioned in a later post: 

 

>Something is the “inside view” of Nothing”....I agree with the premise that 
>perspective is paramount in coming to terms with >and to understand the spooky 
>weird nature of quantum reality; perspective also provides a powerful tool to 
>explain the >“something from nothing paradox”. Something does seem like it 
>could be how Nothing looks from the perspective of being >within itself – as 
>opposed to the bird’s eye view from outside 

 

    I totally agree that perspective is paramount in deciding whether the 
"absolute lack-of-all" is "something" or "nothing".  But, I always like to 
think that when we're inside "nothingness", that means we're also like 
"nothingness", so this "nothingness" just looks like "nothing".  But, if we 
could step outside that "nothingness", we'd see that it is the entirety of all 
there is and thus an existent entity.

 

That is a lovely degree of abstraction J 

Again – it would seem – perspective is key. For as you point out when we adopt 
the inside perspective we become the inside perspective AND all that goes along 
with it! Could there exist a subtle self-referential perspective of having the 
outside perspective on adopting the inside perspective… I wonder. 

Why do I ask, because this seems critical, because if the inside perspective 
remains sealed and cutoff from ever being able to have the inside perspective 
and vice a versa how can they ever communicate or have knowledge about each 
other. I see the need for the special perspective that has a foot – so to speak 
– in both the inside view of nothing and the outside view that is achieved by 
the container of nothing (i.e. the empty set)

Ending this particular response -- right now -- before my brain explodes on 
nothing

Cheers

-Chris 

 

    In regard to Russell's stuff on nothingness, I can't remember the details 
now, but I think I read about it at one time and don't remember its really 
answering any questions. 

 

    Have a good week!

 

                                               Roger  

 

 

 


This is exactly what I'm suggesting.  It would not remain "nothing".  We 
usually think of the situation when you get rid of all matter, energy, 
space/volume, time, abstract concepts, minds, etc. as "nothing".  But, what I'm 
saying is that this supposed "nothing" really isn't the lack of all existent 
entities.  That "nothing" would be the entirety of all that is present; that's 
it; there's nothing else.  It would be the all.  An entirety is a grouping 
defining what is contained within and therefore an existent entity, based on my 
definition of an existent entity.   So, even what we think of as "nothing" is 
an existent entity or "something".  This means that "something" is 
non-contingent.  It's necessary.  There is no such thing as the lack of all 
existent entities.

 

Roger – you have much to say about nothing [just joking] 

I agree with the distinction you make between nothing arrived at through the 
negative process of removing everything that exists until nothing is left 
versus the nothing *that is* everything. 

Further down, if I follow you, you are making the point that if we are speaking 
about the *nothing that is the set of everything there is* then even if this is 
an empty set, by virtue of a set being something – a conceptual entity – then 
even the absolutely empty universal set {} exists as a conceptual entity at 
least.

Is that a fair recap of your intent; or am I off the mark?

-Chris

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:17:27 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:

 

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?

 

On 1/2/2015 9:05 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:

Even if the word "exists" has no use because everything exists, it seems 
important to know why everything exists.  How is it that a thing can exist?  
What I suggest is that a grouping defining what is contained within is an 
existent entity.  Then, you can use this to try and answer the other question 
of "Why is there something rather than nothing?".


If everything exists, what doesn't exist?  Nothing.

 

If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?

-Chris

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected] <javascript:> .
To post to this group, send email to [email protected] <javascript:> .
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to