Liz,
Hi. I totally agree that if we're talking about the S vs. N question
(I like your shortening of it), we can't assume that pre-quantum fields,
the laws of mathematics, etc. are there. That's what Lawrence Krauss did
in his latest book and was criticized for by philosophers. But, I also
think that we can't assume that all possible information, arithmetical
propositions, etc. are there without explanation. It has to start with
what we consider to be the "absolute lack-of-all". My view, though, is
that even if we have what we think is the "absolute lack-of-all", that
"absolute lack-of-all" is itself an existent entity. I say this because I
think an existent entity is a grouping defining what is contained within.
Then, if there is the supposed "absolute lack-of-all", that would be the
entirety of all that is present; there are no existent entities hidden
somewhere else; that's it. Entirety and all are groupings defining what is
contained within, and so it seems like the supposed "absolute lack-of-all"
is itself, then, an existent entity. Of course, because we wouldn't be
there in the case of the supposed "absolute lack-of-all", I can't prove
this, but I can try to use the idea to build a model from it and see it it
fits with what we know about the universe and then try to make some
testable predictions. I'm nowhere near that stage, but by doing this, it
seems like metaphysics can kind of be like science (observe or think about
the S vs. N question, make a hypothesis, and test it to try and get
evidence).
On a different note, I have a hard time navigating through all these
different threads and posts. I wish it were somehow a little easier to
follow. But, it could just be me.
Thanks!
Roger
On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 5:13:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 12 January 2015 at 17:23, 'Roger' via Everything List <
> [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> Everyone,
>>
>> I'd like to propose that we get back to the subject of discussing our
>> ideas on how the universe works, why it's here, etc., and stop talking
>> about religion so much. It'd be nice if we could all also provide
>> constructive criticism if we disagree, instead of insults. If this turns
>> into a religion, hatred, insults type forum, for me at least, it will have
>> lost the value it had.
>>
>> To start, I'd like to propose the following: We all have different
>> views on the question "Why there is something rather than nothing?", if
>> that question even has value, how the universe works, etc. I think it's
>> safe to say that, unless you're an academic, our ideas are also routinely
>> ignored, criticized and made fun of by academics. The only way for
>> amateurs to ever get more traction is if we can take our ideas on the
>> universe, build them up, and make models and testable predictions. That's
>> pretty much the scientific method. Also, if we're discussing metaphysics,
>> metaphysics is the study of being and existence. Because the universe
>> "be"s and exists, and physics is the study of how the universe works, the
>> laws of physics and the universe should be derivable from the principles of
>> metaphysics. I think many of us are trying to work out the principles of
>> metaphysics that apply to how the universe works. I call this a
>> metaphysics-to-physics or philosophical engineering approach. I'd like to
>> challenge all of us to build models and make predictions based on our
>> ideas. That's what I'm trying to do in my own thinking. I've got a very
>> basic beginning model based on my thinking at my website at:
>>
>>
>> https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing
>>
>> in the section called Use of the proposed solution to build a model of
>> the universe. I look forward to reading about others' models on this list
>> in the future.
>>
>> Anyways, even if no one is interested, I'd still vote to get away from
>> religion. Live and let live, let everyone have their say, and move on.
>> That's my two cents. Thanks.
>>
>> OK. I have many times dismissed the God hypothesis (on this forum) as
> having no explanatory value, as have others. But it keeps coming back.
>
> But anyway...
>
> I don't think there is necessarily something rather than nothing. There
> may only appear to be - the "something" of a material universe may be
> somehow derived from the "nothing" of all possible information, as
> suggested by Russell and others.
>
> I think any serious attempt to explain the S vs N (on this list, given
> what's already been said) should start from the basis that "nothing" has to
> mean nothing physical - no pre-quantum fields or whatever are good enough,
> they're still something. Otherwise you're just going from something to
> somethnig else, which is fine in itself but it shouldnt be advertised as
> something from nothing.
>
> My 2c
>
>
--
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.
