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

Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:54:12 -0800 

 

 

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

 

On 08 Jan 2015, at 05:12, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:





 

 

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

On 07 Jan 2015, at 08:41, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

On 04 Jan 2015, at 08:07, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:





In regard to:

"If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?"

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.  

 

Your set comprehension axiom. You are working in some set theory, which is 
provably too much in case you assume brain works without magic 
(computationalism).

 

 







So, even what we think of as "nothing" is an existent entity or "something". 

 

If only through the "we" which think about that nothing. 

 

Is anything possible at all without an observer?

 

 

In principle yes. The arithmetical reality is supposed to exist/make sense 
without any external observer (except God if you take it as a person, but that 
would be confusing).

 

Perhaps observer is too strong of a concept; so let me use a somewhat weaker 
concept. Is anything possible without assuming perspective – or if you prefer 
point of view -- (which implicitly suggests the existence of an observer 
holding that perspective or POV)?

 

The problem is that the notion of observer is far more complex than the notion 
of natural numbers. Indeed we define the notion of observer by machine, 
themselves defined by number relations.

 

If you use a notion of observer, you assume what I want to explain from simpler 
notions on which everybody agree without any problem.

 

In making the case for something out of nothing, simple seems like a most 
important virtue; I take what you are saying about the centrality of 
simplicity. And agree that the full blown self-aware conscious observer is 
complex, but what about much simpler precursors? 

Is elementary perspective also orders of magnitude more complex than the notion 
of countable entities? How can natural numbers existing by themselves with no 
other qualities suffice? If 1,2,3, …, N are not aware of each other or ordered 
with respect to each other they have no function. Numbers depend on other 
numbers and crucially operators. A single natural number by its lonesome self 
does not get us very far.

It seems to me that numbers assume certain constituent qualities that come 
built right into them from the start conceptually. For “1 + 1 = 2” to be true 
we must introduce the two operators (summation, assignment). These operators 
need to know what they are dealing with. For example “x + y = z” certainly 
tells us some things about the internal relationships of [x,y,z]

But without other knowledge we will never know the values of these entities. 

I am quite sympathetic to the mathematical hypothesis and computationalism, it 
appeals to my sensibility and seems elegant and certainly no more complex than 
hard materialism. However, and probably also due to my own ignorance and 
partial understanding of everything, I still find myself to some extent casting 
about and doubting. 

Still, in all, it is a most beautiful voyage… this voyage into the abstract, 
and I very much enjoy the many lively discussions on here. 

 

Then physical observation is defined by the relation between numbers, and at 
that level, you can say, or not (depending on different definition) that the 
physical exist only through the observers. But be careful because this does not 
make disappear far away planet without any observer on them. You can still say 
that such realities depend on the observers, just not the human one, but the 
entire range of possible observers which exists by the infinities of 
arithmetical relations which involve them.

 

What about much weaker meanings of observer than conscious self-aware observer. 
I am thinking of observer in the sense of anything that is capable of 
performing a quantum measurement. 

 

I don't assume the quantum, nor any physics, except that it has to be Turing 
universal, if it exists. Then the quantum is derived from the numbers, using 
only the addition and multiplication laws.

 

It is not clear to me, how the observed laws of physics that have led us to our 
best current models are all emergent from the set of natural numbers and the 
small set of axioms in Peano arithmetic. That it is not clear to me, is neither 
here nor there, and I appreciate what a patient person you are. Many must have 
asked similar questions; is there an everything list FAQ?

 

 

 

We retrieve this from arithmetic and computer sscience (which is embedded in 
the arithmetical reality).

 

Ok

 

 

Computationalism can be considered as an objective idealism. It needs 
(immaterial) number relations, but not necessarily a starting person or mind.

 

However these hypothesized numeric entities – in their own relations, must per 
force be “aware” of each other… in some sense. Not in some anthropomorphic 
sense of being self-aware human like observers. Aren’t concepts, such as 
entanglement and perspective needed in order for the whole system to function?

 

They are not. We just assume that there is no magic working at the brain, and 
this at the meta-level. the tehory of evrything is entirely giving by the 
axioms of Robinso arithmetic, or anything Turing equivalent.

 

Ok

 

The whole theory can be derived from two axioms:

 

Kxy = x

Sxyz = xz(yz)

 

+ few identity rules, we don't even need logic, in this case. We can explains 
numbers or combinators develop the belief in stars, comet and physical 
realities, and, unlike physics, where consciousness comes from, except for our 
belief in natural numbers (or equivalent) which can still be used to justify 
why we cannot explains where the numbers come from. So, computationalism offers 
the best possible solution to the mind-body problem. (this does not make it 
true, of course, but I am not doing philosophy, so I don't even debate of true 
or false, because it is not my job, and it would confuse people, as the key 
point here is that computationalism make a part of philosophy (theology) into 
science).

 

Ok, this last paragraph I like. Anything that can simplify the everything 
problem space J

-Chris

 

Bruno

 

 

 





-Chris

 

Nevertheless, for the physical reality, you need a reasoner (given by Gödel's 
[]p), a knower (given by []p & p), a better ([]p & <>t), and a feeler ([]p & 
<>t & p). Computationalism is itself obtained internally by restricting the 
arithmetical interpretation of the propositional letters to the sigma_1 
sentences, which have the shape ExP(x), with P decidable, as they models the 
computations (they even emulate them, with Church's thesis).

 

Then, the advantage, is that we inherit the proof/truth splitting in two of the 
logic of self-reference, which helps for the qualia and the proper theological 
internal aspect of the arithmetical reality.

 

I hope this helps, but some good books on logic can help also, like Mendelson, 
or Boolos-Jeffrey-Burgess books.

 

Bruno

 

 

 

 

 






-Chris

 

 







This means that "something" is non-contingent.  It's necessary.  There is no 
such thing as the lack of all existent entities.

 

 

It is necessary for having an observer, or a dreamer, conceiving nothing, but 
then you assume "we", which usually is among what we would like to explain the 
existence. In all case we have to do some assumption, notably about the thing 
we talk about before deciding if they exist or not.

 

Like computationalism offers the best we can hope for the mind-body problem, I 
think it does the same for the question of this thread. It is a bit frustrating 
in the sense that it shows that there are minimal thing that we will never 
explain the origin of (like the "basic" Turing universal system).

 

Bruno

 








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

 

 

From: [email protected] <javascript:>  
[mailto:[email protected] <javascript:> ] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:44 PM
To: [email protected] <javascript:> 
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] <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.

 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

 

 

 

-- 
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.

 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

 

 

 

-- 
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.

 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

 

 

 

-- 
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