[Ham] And, by dismissing the primary source, you reduce reality to the appearance of things in space/time. This is ordinary subject/object experience. All you're doing is limiting your perspective of reality to physical existence. By the way, photons and electromagnetic radiation can pass through a perfect
vacuum (nothingness) as they do in empty space (nothingness). This doesn't change nothingness into something. [Krimel] Wow, that post really set you to sputtering, didn't it? Speaking of empty space or vast wastelands as "nothingness" is just using the term in a colloquial everyday sense. Nothing as a metaphysical concept meaning is like Eucild's point, "That which hath no extent." Extension in space is space. When you speak of "dimensional nothingness" or "existential nothingness." This is different than "nothingness" When you say in your online term paper, "Geometrically, of course, the diameter has no dimensions-it is a nothingness" This is at odds with your definition of nothingness. Nothingness - The physical void in actualized existence that individuates proprietary awareness [negate] and localizes finite being in space and time. In relational terms, the (spacio-temporal) discontinuity of perception that is responsible for cognizance of a differentiated world. Metaphysically, the antithesis of Essence whose negation is the primary cause of relational experience. Or when you say: "Every object and event in nature is separated from every other by the nothingness between them." This is not nothingness. This is just empty space. [Ham] Who is talking about "what it feels like"? Certainly not me. Granted, I'm not giving you a physicist's view of reality. The primary source is not an experiential entity: it is not directly sensed or experienced by human beings. Rather, it is the potentiality of all the things you're describing. [Krimel] When you attempt to describe something that is beyond even our capacity to experience, you are asking us to imagine what it would feel like to be in such a state. When you ask us to set aside certain concepts like time and space which are fundamental to our being in the world you should at least have a clearer idea of what it is you ask us to set aside. [Ham] By what standard do you measure "sophisticated understanding"? A textbook on science? If you scorn all metaphysical concepts, and finite existence is the only reality you can accept, then why do you need philosophy? [Krimel] I was being charitable. By sophisticated I meant you should have a faint clue what you are talking about. A textbook in science at even the elementary level might help you. A metaphysical concept must embrace the purely physical. If concepts are proposed that are at odds with physical observations they fail as metaphysical concepts. Such concepts purport to explain the existence of any world. If they fail in this one they certainly can't account for some other. [Ham] Exactly. The best minds in the field of astrophysics. And you'll find that their "understanding" of ontogeny is all over the place, mainly because, like you, they reject a primary source. Like you, they experience time as a physical principle, hence have invented a "big bang" to account for its "start". Not all physicists accept this theory, however, since it violates the law of Conservation of Energy. [Krimel] The astrophysicists and I suffer no ill consequences from rejecting your primary source. You, to my knowledge, have never presented us with a single reason to even consider it seriously. [Ham] I suspect you regard any metaphysical hypothesis as "confused". [Krimel] I don't know about "any" but yours certainly. [Ham] Of course. That's the "unsophisticated" knowledge you get from experience. Unless or until you allow yourself to consider intuitive concepts, your understanding will never get beyond the finite, relational world. [Krimel] Intuition? What is that? Is that what you elevate above empirical knowledge? Is this what allows you to prattle on without regard for rationality or logic? Intuition? Is that like a hunch? Is it the superpower that lets my wife know when I've been naughty? It sounds a lot like "revelation" the way you use it and you act on it as one would, who is driven by blind faith. [Ham] So much for your sophisticated understanding. It's as dead as philosophy in today's world. Next time you have a yen to catch up on physics, check out a logic book while you're at it. You'll find that the statement "something comes from nothing" is a fallacious premise. [Krimel] Exactly, "all swans are white" was used in logic textbooks for centuries until black swans were discovered. The local appearance of virtual particles does not violate the overall laws of thermodynamics but it does suggest that your reasoning on this is flawed. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
