The Predicate of Existence
The predicate of existence: did it come from nothing, something else entirely, God?
What caused existence to be, and why?
Is it even important to ask such questions? Should we wonder how existence came to be or should we accept what Physicists have offered as an explanation? I hear that existence came from "nothing", but I've also heard that it is part of a vast assortment of other universes in a conglomeration known as the "multiverse". Some scientists even postulate that there are "parallel universes" where you and I have other versions of ourselves that have made alternate choices in life, possibly every version of ourselves having been carried out.
Surely, this would take freewill out of the equation, leaving behind a truly mechanical universe where there simply is no other choice than for there to be other versions of me, but at the same time some strange form of freewill where our choices diverged.
What does the "multiverse" live in? Some sort of ultra-meta space that is beyond time and space perhaps?
How is it possible that "nothing" can create anything other than "nothing"? Would that not be an oxymoron?
It seems we really only have a few choices:
Either that, "something was always here" which is sort of a begging of the question. Or that there must be that which is supernatural, which could have created time and space.
Either we have eternal time and space, and endless "begging of the question", an infinite regression of something upon something...or we have a miracle.
So too does life appear out of nothing that really we must wonder if it is a miracle.
We seem surrounded by the same convolutions when we entertain the cause of anything substantial, whether it be our own life or it be our own universe.
It seems to be about the only thing that we can be sure of, either we are purposely being shrouded from any meaningful evaluation of our environment, or perhaps, what life already has to offer is the ultimate lesson that we must learn. To wither away at the bottom of a casket, laugh at plain jokes, and stare at the stars in wonderment.
What caused existence to be, and why?
Is it even important to ask such questions? Should we wonder how existence came to be or should we accept what Physicists have offered as an explanation? I hear that existence came from "nothing", but I've also heard that it is part of a vast assortment of other universes in a conglomeration known as the "multiverse". Some scientists even postulate that there are "parallel universes" where you and I have other versions of ourselves that have made alternate choices in life, possibly every version of ourselves having been carried out.
Surely, this would take freewill out of the equation, leaving behind a truly mechanical universe where there simply is no other choice than for there to be other versions of me, but at the same time some strange form of freewill where our choices diverged.
What does the "multiverse" live in? Some sort of ultra-meta space that is beyond time and space perhaps?
How is it possible that "nothing" can create anything other than "nothing"? Would that not be an oxymoron?
It seems we really only have a few choices:
Either that, "something was always here" which is sort of a begging of the question. Or that there must be that which is supernatural, which could have created time and space.
Either we have eternal time and space, and endless "begging of the question", an infinite regression of something upon something...or we have a miracle.
So too does life appear out of nothing that really we must wonder if it is a miracle.
We seem surrounded by the same convolutions when we entertain the cause of anything substantial, whether it be our own life or it be our own universe.
It seems to be about the only thing that we can be sure of, either we are purposely being shrouded from any meaningful evaluation of our environment, or perhaps, what life already has to offer is the ultimate lesson that we must learn. To wither away at the bottom of a casket, laugh at plain jokes, and stare at the stars in wonderment.
Comments (97)
Even with those proposed explanations, there's still the question, "Well what caused parallel or mulitverses to be?" I explore the logic here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary if you're interested.
In short, it is logically necessary that within any causal chain, there is a "first cause". This is something which has no explanation for its existence, other than the fact it is. The big bang might have been self-explained. The universe may have just popped into existence at once, in pieces, etc. There still may be self-explained things happening today. We honestly would have an extremely difficult time knowing, as a self-explained existence has no rules for what it can, or cannot be.
So just appreciate that what ever one or several first causes have made the universe what it is today, it just happened to be with no real reason behind it. The question really is, what will we do with what we have today? Decide your own purpose, and live it well.
Germs and other single-celled organisms no doubt exist on other extraterrestrial terrains. They produce, mingle (perhaps?), and also die. It's a multi-faceted question. Why is our idea of consciousness in vocal and visual communication any less rich than theirs simply because we cannot perceive it?
From recent ganders on the net, I've seen growing talk of "evolution of consciousness".
Someone by the name of Donald Hoffman (cognitive scientist) claims that evolution shapes consciousness, which is a bit of a strange way of saying that consciousness evolves. Such a theory would have very little, if anything to do with science as there is currently no quantification of consciousness.
Quoting Outlander
Hmm, I've never heard such a question. I suppose that a single-celled organism is no match for our 170 billion brain cells tirelessly working in unison? :snicker:
That's where I put my vote, based on not much of anything. It's not begging the question at all, it's saying the question is meaningless.
Kant argues that "existence" is not a predicate (re: criticism of Descartes' & Leibniz's ontological arguments for the existence of god).
What caused causality "to be"? :chin:
"Existence fails to be" (or "existence cannot be") is a self-contradiction like "nonexistence exists". Also, the only answer to the (ultimate) "why" question which does not precipitate an infinite regress is that There Is No Why. :eyes:
They're "important to ask" only insofar as "such questions" yield more probative, precise, less speculative questions.
:up:
Hmm, well "begging the question" is the informal fallacy of the conclusion being contained in the premise, it has nothing to do with an actual question, per say. Let me explain (and sorry that I was not more clear).
As far as "something always being here", it begs the question in the sense that we are even here talking about it in the first place. In an infinite world it should follow that there is no explanation for "infinity", rather, it would be a given (I believe this is what you were trying to convey as well). :smile:
It would be akin to the question, "what is the predicate of a human?", and the answer being "the human genome". Sure, the human genome can explain in part why we are human, but the answer is tautological in nature and gets us really nowhere closer to the truth (unless that is, you believe existence precedes essence, in which case "the human genome" would be a perfectly fair explanation for "humanness").
And so, asking the predicate of existence, and the answer being "something was always here" is in a sense merely a begging of the question, and at the very least an infinite regression.
If, in fact, it is true that the universe is eternal, then it is neither begging the question nor an infinite regress. It doesn't make sense to ask a question then exclude a possible answer.
I think it would be easier on the eyes if you wrote that, "why does causality exist?" :snicker:
Quoting chiknsld
Quoting 180 Proof
Ahh, I see what you're trying to do there. :smile:
Quoting 180 Proof
Ahh, that's quite interesting.
Quoting chiknsld
Quoting 180 Proof
Indeed, thank you for sharing.
That's very interesting, did you know that some Physicists are now trying to prove that time exists separately from space? This is in regards to your saying there's no such thing as "beyond space".
Very old, but quite relevant to what you are saying here:
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html
I appreciate your response. Although I may just be misunderstanding the article you referenced, it seems as though they are disputing time being that of 4D (and positing it as apart of 3D), not that time is "separate" in the sense of time being truly separate from "space" altogether:
In terms of what I said in my post, I don't find anything wrong with positing time "in a 3D space".
Hypothetically (just in case I misunderstood the article), let's say they were arguing for a time which is "outside of space" (or "beyond space"), then I think it would be subject to the same critique I made in my original post.
It also depends on what you are referring to by "space". I am not considering it in the sense of "outer space", "string theory", "special relativity", etc (although they are really interesting and worthy considerations): I am referring to the universal spatial reference of everything (including "everything" itself"). Which I think physicists tend to be more interested in distinctions of "space" under the uniform, inevitable spatial reference (which, to be honest, I think they should be: they're profession is science not philosophy).
Absolutely! You have it right, it's just that ever since Einstein described time as a fourth dimensional property, time was seen as something existing outside of the 3 dimensions we currently live in. :smile:
The article is merely stating that they are trying to prove that time can be used as a measurement within 3-d space. Nevertheless, time would still be separate from space whether in a fourth dimension or as a measurement.
I guess my larger point to your contention (Physics experiments aside :)) regarding notions of "nothing", and things that do not have a cause, self-creation, etc., is that such descriptions are actually possible. Just because something cannot exist does not mean it cannot be described.
Sure, we can accept that the universe was always here, but it will still lead to very difficult questions to be answered.
I'll give you one example:
It must be said that "nothing" is far easier than "something". For nothing to exist there is no friction, no energy that need be applied, no mathematics, no logic, no suffering, no agony, no dismay, no death and destruction, no moral arguments, no restitution nor justice. There needn't be any struggle for survival, betrayal, striving for immortality, fighting against the odds...there would merely be nothing. Nothing is far easier. It is the highest paradigm of Occam's razor.
Why need there be something when there can be nothing?
And yet, here we are in a vast, limitless universe. Certainly we are not here to just accept it all. I mean, plenty of people do, and that works out just fine for them. But to have a brain and be surrounded by countless inanimate matter, in an environment where we seem to be the pinnacle of intelligence, we are thus obligated to question how we got here and why.
Providing the sound principle of "Occam's razor" we must admit that something is far harder than nothing. And if this is not the case, then what is it that is stopping nothing from existing?
Are we proof that nothing cannot exist? If we are the power that defeats nothing then we must be the power that creates inquiry.
There's a logical difficulty that appears insurmountable in your question.
Given any answer, you wold be quite justified in asking why that answer, rather than some other. So for example if someone says that the universe was sneezed from the nose of Great Green Arkleseizure you might well ask where the Great Green Arkleseizure came from.
And that process applies to any answer you receive.
Like answering the proverbial three-year-old, eventually one ends up saying "just because'.
Banno, that is very true. Questions pertaining to existential origin are the hardest questions.
But much of philosophy, especially metaphysics, and much of religion, consists in attempting to provide inevitably wrong answers.
Better to be silent than to be wrong or to talk nonsense.
You think so?
Quoting Banno
That is certainly one way of looking at it. :)
In terms of what we've been discussing (which it is a great discussion by the way!), I have no problem with either postulations (it being outside of 3D or within it), as my main point is that both postulations have no bearing on my assertion. They would both still be conjectures that are under the uniform spatial reference. It could very well be that I am missing something, so please feel free to point it out if you think I am misunderstanding (:
Ah, so if it is indeed postulating that time is nevertheless "separate" from space in a fourth dimension or third, then I think it is subjected to the same exact critique. But to get into that, let me address the rest of your post.
With regards to the second quote here, I actually (generally) agree: I may determine that, in hindsight, something that I thought was possible was actually impossible given the circumstances, and I nevertheless can describe them. However, I wouldn't quite agree with the first quote (which I think is in connection to the second): a predicate that contradicts its subject is describable only insofar as it demonstrates the contradiction itself. For example, a "circle that is square" only describes my ability to conceive of a "circle", a "square", and the joining of non-contradictory shapes (e.g. a square rectangle, two circles overlapping one another, etc). These three concepts are arranged in a particular order that produces a predicate that contradicts its subject (i.e. "circle is a square"): I take both concepts of the shapes and determine they are impossible. Moreover, more importantly, when I truly try to conceive of a "circle that is a square" I attempt to join the two shapes together, and given I can't, I never conceive of it. Now, I think what you are getting at (correct me if I am wrong), is that I nevertheless was able to describe what a circular square would be. To that I would agree only insofar as I am able to explicate the contradiction (and therefrom the three aforementioned concepts), but never what a "circular square" actually is. All I obtain, as described, is a "circle", a "square", and the joining to non-contradictory shapes. So I wouldn't completely disagree with you, but I wouldn't agree either.
I would say that it depends on what you mean by "universe". Can we potentially explain the big bang? Or something else in the causal chain? Yes. If by "universe" you mean holistically all of "existence", then no. I think that causally speaking it is all a potential infinite. We are never going to get to a point where we can rest our heads and proclaim "we've find the first starting point!". All within the causal order is potentially infinite. So, I am not accepting that the universe was always here in the sense of an actual infinite but, rather, I would explain it in terms of a potential infinite. However, that potential infinite, if granted as the explanation, doesn't explain all of "existence", only merely that which is in the causal order.
I understand what you are conveying here, and it is worthy question to ask. However, I would like to firstly disclaim that whether "nothing" is easier than "something" (which, as you are well aware, inevitably invokes Occam's razor) is a separate debate (albeit I am more than willing to participate). The only reason I say that is because it also has no bearing on what I was meaning to convey in my original post. Nothing, in terms of how you are using it in your example, is not "true nothingness", which is what I was trying to dispute. Your consideration is exactly in agreement (I think at least) with what I was saying: you are simply conceiving of "nothing" as the negation of all "things", which is the absent of all conceivable concepts. My original point was that that is not "nothing" in a pure sense (as it can't be postulated in a pure sense).
Anyways, back to what you were saying. I think that "nothing", in the sense of conceptualizing complete absence, is dependent on "something". For I would hold it is "something". If I conceptualize the negation (as you did) of all concepts, there's inevitably a spatial reference left over (i.e. no energy, no mathematics, etc are simply the conceptualization of something without that concept--such as something without mathematics). This hasn't "escaped", so to speak, the uniform spatial reference: to posit something as not there, I am referencing "a there". So, if what you mean by "nothing" is describable is that we can describe the negation of all concepts (in a potential infinite fashion), then I agree. However, I don't see how that negates what I am saying either. However, the problem with me saying "nothing" is "something" is that "nothing" would negate that "something" (it is a contradiction to claim that "nothing" is "something"), but my point is that the negation is this without that.
In terms of whether "nothing" is truly "easier" than "something", I am not so sure of that. Again, I don't think there is "nothing" without 'negating something'. Even stating "nothing without negating something" is utilizing the uniform spatial reference.
So when you ask "why is there something rather than nothing?", I think, holistically, you are asking "why is there something rather than the removal of concepts from my inevitable spatial reference?". But, in terms of causal order, we can ask a potential infinite of questions pertaining to why this was cause by that rather than that simply not causing this.
I don't see how we are "certainly not here just to accept it all". However, I am not entirely sure what you are meaning by "accept it all". In terms of the causal order, we can most definitely try to explain why the universe is the way it is, or what caused the Big Bang, or something like that. However, the entirety of existence cannot be explained in that manner.
As far as I understand his principle, it is "entities should not be multiplied without necessity", not that the simplest answer (or easier answer) is better. Also, I don't think that Occam's razor derives any sort of qualifications for comparing two theories in terms of complexity (in other words, Occam's razor speaks to if something rather than nothing is more complex than nothing without necessity, then we should hold that the latter is true over the former). Later, any arguments one may give for that actually being the case (something being harder than nothing) is an attempt to apply that rule (that there should actually be nothing). Otherwise, the razor itself simply points out that the belief that has minimal necessary specifications should supersede others. So, in other words, accepting Occam's razor does not necessitate that something is far harder than nothing (that's a separate argument, I would say).
I see this no different than asking what is stopping a square circle from existing: it can't (not only that, but it can be only conceived of and described insofar as a contradiction, which wouldn't be what it would actually be).
I am not sure how the impossibility of nothing necessitates that we create inquiry: how is that so?
Wonderful points (:, I look forward to hearing from you.
Bob
Bob, this was a very long post. Please make sure to read to the end before starting your response. I think that once you read the post in full, you will see that I cleared up all the confusion. Thanks![/b]
Quoting Bob Ross
It's truly my pleasure, your enthusiasm is a breath of fresh air. :)
Quoting Bob Ross
Hmm, I do not think that you are missing anything at all, I do think that you may be splitting hairs just a tad bit, but honestly, it's probably a lack of proper explication on my part (I'll try to fix that if I can).
Quoting Bob Ross
Well, if there is no predicate for existence that is certainly one thing. If it is a contradiction to ask the question that would be another thing. And of course it could be both as well, hehe (3 options you are alluding to).
Quoting Bob Ross
Hmm, not exactly. You see, you are creating a trap for yourself. When you say that something existed without existing, that would merely be an oxymoron. I would not be so silly as to ask a question that was merely an oxymoron. :)
Asking for the predicate of existence is asking what created existence in the first place. I suppose to you, that sounds the same as "what existed without existence". :)
Let me ask you a question, what does "existence" mean to you?
Quoting Bob Ross
Well, on the surface of it, it would seem that "nothing" creating anything other than "nothing" is an oxymoron, indeed. :) Nevertheless, there are Physicists who believe that this is what happened.
As far as something causing existence...I think you're getting too caught up on what is considered to be logical, versus illogical, non-logical, etc. It does appear as well, that you conflate non-logic as being synonymous with illogic. Something could be non-logical and that does not automatically entail that it is illogical.
You do realize that first of all, the universe could be illogical, right (or non-logical)? For all intents and purposes we can't even disprove a solipsistic existence (no, I am not advocating for solipsism, I can already see you saying, "that's another debate" :)).
And whatever did create the universe would obviously have to surpass the normal laws of Physics that we abide by. I would assume it would be some sort of omniscient kind of entity or force. For a lot of what this question asks, logic will totally fly out the door. The art of this is to properly identify what is the most rational line of logic, if any, that we can apply to it. But do not forget that the very question will blur the lines of reality (since we are asking for the origin of reality itself).
Quoting Bob Ross
This is simply not true. An omniscient entity need not abide by the rules of our physics. The possibilities are as far as the imagination can go.
Quoting Bob Ross
"Nothing" does not reference existence. Nothing is the complete opposite of that. "Nothingness" has no reference in the first place.
Quoting Bob Ross
"Nothing" is not an existence. Nothing would be the complete opposite of that. Nothing is not a spatial reference. Nothing has no reference in the first place. The more you try to describe nothing, the less it is the true idea of nothing :)
Quoting Bob Ross
Well, we are "something" so it is very hard to conceptualize "nothing". As you are saying, whatever concept you have, it will be of "something". That's how you know what nothing is (it's the exact opposite). Do you see how that works? :)
Yes, I know its tricky.
Quoting Bob Ross
This is merely more of the same. The key to understanding "nothing" again, is not to envision the "combination of concepts" as you say, but rather, the deletion of them. When you get good at conceptualizing the "absence", then you will have a decent understanding of nothing.
Sure, it is ultimately impossible to conceptualize nothing, but that is exactly what you need to understand. :)
It's the exact opposite of everything you know. The more you fight it, the less it is "nothing". Embrace the "absence". Btw, do you know what would happen if you could actually conceptualize "nothingness"?
(Uh oh, I don't want to get you started..."It's not possible to conceptualize nothing because even the concept of nothing is still...") :snicker:
Don't get me wrong, I totally understand what you are saying. But you are letting your intuition stop you from learning about "nothing". Your goal should be to learn about it rather than to fight it. Where you make your mistake is in assuming that because we are "something" that we cannot learn about "nothing". But we can; nothing is the complete negation of everything that we know to be something. This allows us to understand everything there is to know about nothing. In fact, it is only "something" that can understand nothing in the first place. Nothing cannot understand itself, because it is nothing. :)
So, it is in fact our gift of being "something" that we may understand what "nothing" is. And here you are telling me that we cannot understand nothing. We are the only ones that can! Because we are something!
Existence is not a predicate, this is a Meinongian view that has been rebuked very thoroughly by Frege and Russell. There is no distinction between an existing and a non-existing apple: "existence" really is just being.
@Banno
Yep, that's what Kant claims, but is it true?
In predicate logic (Frege et al), existence can't be predicated to an object (vide infra).
John exists = [math](\exists x)(x = j)[/math], not [math]Ej[/math] such that j = John and Ej = John exists. So far so good.
I 'm having difficulty translating the following statement into symbolic predicate logic.
All cows exist = [math](\forall x)(Cx \rightarrow Ex)[/math] such that Cx = x is a cow and Ex = x exists. As you can see I have to use existence as a predicate to translate "all cows exist" into symbolic predicate logic.
Too, there doesn't seem to be a problem in categorical logic (Aristotle) in treating existence as a predicate (vide infra).
All atoms exist = All atoms are existent things ("existent things" being a valid predicate).
The negation of "all cows exist" is "some cows don't exist" = [math]\neg(\forall x)(Cx \rightarrow Ex) = (\exists x)( Cx \land \neg Ex)[/math] (???)
Conclusion: In predicate logic existence can't be used as a predicate.
What's going on?
Read K's argument (critique). It's meta-ontological, not merely logical or grammatical.
The way I understood Kant's position on the matter is like this: If I were to say "x is all-good" (G1), it's the same thing as saying "x exists and x is all good" (G2). There being a predicate that's non-ontological (all-good) presupposes ontology (x exists).
An analogy: What's the difference between "god exists" and " 'god exists' is true"?
I still haven't really grasped Kant's point. Just offering an intuition (for correction).
Note that "all cows exist" is not true; the cow that jumped over the moon does not exist.
What's happening? The logic is forcing us to be clear about what we mean when we say something exists - it is insisting on our being consistent.
Note also that, that something exists cannot be the conclusion of an argument in free logic. So it will not serve to show that, for example, god exists.
:up: I'll look into it. You said some very important and interesting stuff. Thanks.
It does not seem to matter how often humans make statements such as 'we can never know' or 'there is no answer,' or 'it is pointless to ask the question.' The questions that we cannot answer still have an 'existence' and as long as they do, someone will ask them. Saying 'that a particular question will NEVER be answered,' will NEVER be fully accepted because humans are convinced that 'time brings change.' So change gives hope of an answer 'in time.'
That is the human condition. Perhaps this is where individual contentment can be found.
Only if you can take your basic means of survival for granted and you have relatively good health of course. Then you might be able to just enjoy a life of thinking and doing and asking big complex questions that no one can currently answer and still be very happy and not die utterly mentally destroyed or completely mad because you couldn't answer the meaning of life the Universe and everything, with something more meaningful than 42.
I appreciate the disclaimer, but I would like to assure you that I will always read your posts in their entirety before making any assertions: I would not be giving you nor your ideas the proper respect it deserves if I didn't. You can always expect this of me, and if I fall short then you have permission to slap me through the internet (:
That being said, I am going to respond in chronological order (I find it easier that way), but if that is an issue just let me know and I can try a different approach.
Yes, I think you are right here: I would be positing the combination of both.
I understand that it is silly, when posited in the manner I did, to ask such a question: but that is my point. When you state "Asking for a predicate of existence is asking what created existence in the first place", I think you are thereby conceding that whatever created existence exists prior to existence. Now, you may be referring to maybe a different underlying meaning for "existence" for the creator vs the creation (so two different meanings for "to exist"), but nevertheless they would both be underneath the universal "being" reference (but you talk about this later on, so more on that later).
I am not sure how in depth to explicate here (so feel free to inquire more in you would like), but I would consider "existence" as "to be" (or "being"), which, for me, has no relation "the external world" specifically. My imaginations exist. My thoughts exist. However, it exists only insofar as it is not contradicted. For example, a unicorn that I imagined in my mind exists as an imagined unicorn, but does not exist as a concreto in "the external world". Still exists, just abstractly. I think we (as in humanity) like to make meaningful distinctions between a unicorn "existing" in the sense of in my head and in the so called "real world", but both are engulfed by the ever present, unescapable "existence". Colloquially, for example, people may argue that "unicorns don't exist"; however, as you are probably already gathering, I would say that they are referring to a concept of "existence" under the holistic concept of existence. Hopefully that makes a bit of sense.
This is just a side note, but I honestly don't think Physicists (for example, Lawrence Krauss) are actually referring to "true nothingness", but an altered version (especially in Krauss' case: he just can't seem to grasp that he isn't solving the philosophical dilemma pertaining to such because he is not defining nothing in the same manner).
Very interesting! I don't think, as of now, I agree (I don't think it is a conflation). It may be, however, that we aren't referring to the same "logic" (semantically), but if something is non-logical it is illogical. In turn, something that is illogical is irrational. But to dive into that, let's take your example:
You know me too well already (that's another debate) (:. But all joking aside, I first want to explicate back to you what I think you mean by "illogical" vs "non-logical" (so you can correct me if I am wrong). "illogical" is that which is violated during the process of "logical inquiry", whereas "non-logical", which is where I am not clearly seeing the definition, is when something doesn't directly violate "logic" but, rather, is simply something that lacks "logic" altogether. Did I understand that correctly?
I think that (to keep it brief) something is "logical" if it is not contradicted and something is "illogical" if it is contradicted. "non-logic", in the sense of an absence of "logic", is subject to the same critique as before: it is only our logical derivation of what the negation of logic would be. Maybe if you explain it in further detail I can respond more adequately, but I don't see when something could be non-logical.
In terms of solipsism, I want to separate two claims that are typically made therein: we have no good reasons to believe other people are subjects and we are the only subject. The former I have no problem with (and actually agree), the latter is a leap (a giant leap). The latter is where solipsists get into trouble, and that's where the contradictions arise. I think (and correct me if I am wrong) you are positing solipsism as an example of something we don't hold, but nevertheless can't be dis-proven (logically): it is dis-proven in the sense of the latter, and proven in the sense of the former. I genuinely don't see how anything pertaining to such was "non-logical".
So when I speak of something never surpassing the universal being, spatial, and temporal references, I don't mean "physics". I am perfectly fine, for all intents and purposes, agreeing with you that such a being (if they exist) would have to transcend physics (I don't hold that "physics" or "laws of nature" are synonymous with "logic").
If what you mean by this is "physics will fly out the door", then I agree. I do not hold that "logic" flies out the door, as it is utilized to derive everything (including "everything" itself). There's never a point at which I can conclude that I've derived a situation where the principle of noncontradiction is false, because even if I could do that it would be contingent on the principle of noncontradiction in the first place (i.e. this hypothetical situation where pon is false, is contingent on me utilizing that very principle to derive it in the first place).
I hate to be reiterative, but it blurs lines, I would say, because it is contradictory (albeit not self-evidently contradictory).
I think that we are utilizing "logic" differently. I have no problem, for all intents and purposes, conceding that an "omniscient entity" would not need to abide by the rules of our physics, because I don't hold "physics" as synonymous with "logic". Imagination abides by logic (I know, it may sound crazy). That doesn't mean that my imagination abides by physics (it definitely doesn't: I can fly on my imagined earth).
I think you are agreeing with me that we cannot conceptualize or fathom "nothing". However, I think you are stilling positing that it somehow exists apart from existence. Would you agree that "nothing" is simply the potential infinite of "deleting" concepts? My point is that that potential infinite would merely, at best, approach the limit of "nothing", and I feel like you are agreeing with me on that. However, that previous sentence is partially wrong, there is no "actual nothing" that is apart from "nothing" as a potential infinite of removals (we aren't approaching "true nothingness").
Likewise, the process of achieving a potential infinite of removals is simply the removal of something from space. That is what I mean by nothing being spatially referenced. Obviously nothing would negate "space": but would it? No. It would negate a conception of a spatial framework under the uniform space. Every attempt to negate "space" would follow that pattern for a potential infinite of times. Do you agree with me on that?
So, to recap, to say that one gets decent at understanding nothing by practicing the deletion of concepts, that is all "nothing" is. There's no "actual nothing" that we are approaching the limit of when we perform such actions.
I don't have a problem exploring the practice of the absence (in a potential infinite fashion) of concepts. My point is that "nothing" in the sense of a potential infinite is not the same as positing a "complete negation of everything": that is attempting to achieve something which doesn't exist (an actual infinite of removals). That is recognizing the potential infinite of removals and leaping (in my opinion) to the idea that we are moving towards (approaching in a limit style) "true nothingness".
Hopefully I cleared up some of the confusion: I agree that we, as something, can explore the concept of a potential infinite of removals, but that's not "true nothing" in the sense of an actual infinite of removals. I would refurbish "true nothing" as simply the former and deny the latter.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Bob
Hi Bob! :smile:
Okay, so at this point I'd like to take just a small step back, and really try to understand what your contention is with the question regarding the op.
In summary: I ask of the audience, what do you think, if any, is the predicate of existence?
In summary: You are saying that the question is illogical?
You are saying that there cannot be a predicate of existence because any answer would entail existence itself? Thus, it would be a contradiction?
I suppose what I do not understand is, why is it useful to you, to say that the question is illogical? This question, is directly coupled with the following observation...
In the op, I offer another option, instead of saying that there is a predicate of existence, you could say that existence was always here.
Are you saying that existence was always here? Or are you only saying that the question is illogical, but ignoring (I do not mean this in an accusatory sense!) the option of an eternal universe?
At this point your entire response seems to be a contention of the question, but I would like to know, are you saying that the universe is eternal? Do you even believe that we are in a universe?
I have no problem addressing your contentions, but I just want to make sure I first have an answer to the question of the op, unless that is, you are saying that the universe is neither eternal, nor is there a predicate (because that is illogical to you)...I am trying to figure out exactly what your answer is or other possibilities you think there are that were not already offered in the op.
I apologize if my responses were confusing, let me try to explain it more proficiently.
So, as you previously pointed out, I am making two claims: (1) "existence" is not a valid predicate, and (2) "existence" has no valid predicates. In terms of #1, I think you are already understanding what that means (but, as always, I could be utterly wrong on that, so feel free to inquire further if you want). In terms of #2, I don't think there are any valid predicates to "existence": it is essentially a priori (or transcendental), which is necessarily presupposed in every manifestation of reason.
For example, any predicate offered for "existence" necessarily presupposes existence itself: existence is X, became X, was X, was caused by X, etc. is, became, etc references existence as its a priori presupposition.
I may be misunderstanding you, but my critique here is that I don't think what you are offering truly is an alternative to a predicate of existence. To say "existence was always here" has a predicate (which is in bold). I'm not sure how that is separate solution from "a predicate of existence" (they are both predicates). If I say "existence was caused by X" or "existence has always been here", they both produce the same contradiction (as they are both predicates of existence).
This is fair, my contention has been with the question itself. But in this case, although I understand how disappointing this is going to sound, the question is invalid (so I don't think there is a solution). If I asked you "how far can I throw a square circle?", you can't provide a valid answer because it is not a valid question (albeit enticing of a question). So if I am right (emphasis on if), then the question cannot be answered in a valid manner, because it is an invalid question. It would entail that it is a wasted effort to try and discover the answer to "what color is a triangular rectangle?" ("existence was caused by X"--was caused by X is a predicate which presupposes existence).
Now, I don't want to completely disappoint you: we can ask mind-boggling, thought-provoking questions pertaining to what pertains under the apodictically true references of our manifestations of reason (such as where did the "universe" come from). But existence in its entirety, is simply the ever referenced (a priori if you will) aspect of our reason. In terms of the universe (if posited as dis-synonymous with "existence" in its entirety), I think that it is a potential infinite: that would be my explanation. Zoom out, zoom in, go forward, go back, etc it will always be a potential infinite.
Does that help?
Bob
Excellent. Do you think the concept of "being" has always existed (or do you think that this concept had a beginning)?
Quoting Bob Ross
Has that concept of a unicorn always existed? Or does that concept of a unicorn only exist for a certain amount of time (such as while you imagine it)? If the concept of the unicorn did not always exist, does that mean the concept of the unicorn had a beginning?
Do human beings exist? Do you think the existence of human beings had a beginning? Or do you think human beings always existed?
Depends on what you mean. If you are referring to "being" as "existence" (as I depicted it), then you are again asking "do you think "existence" has always existed": which is an invalid question. If you are referring semantically to the word "being" in english, then yes it had a beginning. Concepts under the existential reference can be posited as "existing" or "not existing" in reference to in space and at a particular duration of time, but "existence" itself cannot be posited as "existing" or "not existing".
Yes, any concept under the uniform existential reference can "be" or "not be" in relation to time and space. "not be" is a negation in reference to existence (in space and pertaining to a duration of time), and "be" is an affirmation.
What do you mean by "human beings"? If you mean "human being" as in the animal (as taken and thusly analyzed as an object), then they had a beginning of existence (with respect to many, I presume--as in the evolutionary definition would produce a beginning roughly of the first homio sapiens, or a different beginning time with regards to the first multi-cellular life, etc).
As in the subject (which I would specifically hold is reason, which is metaphysical), it is not subjected to the same analysis as the consideration of a "human being's" body (taken as object). But that might derail our conversation quite a bit, so I will leave it there and let you decide what you want to talk about.
Bob
Hi Bob,
Spectacular :) So the way that people such as myself would say it, is "all concepts exist beyond time".
Your answer to the op would be, "existence was always here".
Thank you for sharing!
I'm interpreting this as an agreement, but refurbishment, of what I said. However, I do not hold that "all concepts exist beyond time".
I don't want to be reiterative, and if you would like to close the discussion that perfectly fine (I am enjoying our conversation, but if you would like to end it that is fine too), but I want to clarify that I do not hold that position. If you would like to explain why you think that I am somehow implicitly arguing for that statement then please feel free: but I explicitly stated I am not in agreement with that proposition.
I look forward to hearing from you,
Bob
Hi Bob!
The information that you have provided to the thread, especially re: "the existence of unicorns" has been more than adequate!
The thread shall stay open and it is a pleasure to have you here. Please do feel free to add as much or as little as you would like. :)
-"The predicate of existence: did it come from nothing, something else entirely, God?
What caused existence to be, and why?"
Let me first answer your questions
-"did it come from nothing": - No, we don't have an example of nothing so its more of an idealistic concept. Science shows us that there is a constant cosmic substrate that manifests in our universe through the phenomenon of quantum fluctuations.
-"something else entirely,": -change in the energetic state of cosmic fluctuations.
-"God": Not a philosophical topic....
-"Should we wonder how existence came to be or should we accept what Physicists have offered as an explanation?
-Why do you think that wondering about existence could be done independently from the facts provided by Physics. What kind of "philosophy'' doesn't take facts in to account?
-''I hear that existence came from "nothing":
-That statement depends on what "nothing" means to someone. The truth is that "nothing" is not a state of being, so nothing can not be ...by definition.
Physics provides some indications on what might exist/ed in addition to the material nature of our universe.
-"but I've also heard that it is part of a vast assortment of other universes in a conglomeration known as the "multiverse".
-the idea of cosmos containing many universes (either on a parallel or serial setup array) is the product of our math (string theory) our quantum interpretations (many worlds) and our observations (cosmic quantum fluctuations). This is where our science and philosophical questions start but we can never have answers based on our cultural artifacts (gods). In order to advance our frameworks we will need additional data.
-"Some scientists even postulate that there are "parallel universes" where you and I have other versions of ourselves that have made alternate choices in life, possibly every version of ourselves having been carried out."
-Not a scientific framework though ...All scientists are free to postulate their metaphysical views...but they are not part of our physics.(at least currently).
-"Surely, this would take freewill out of the equation, leaving behind a truly mechanical universe where there simply is no other choice than for there to be other versions of me, but at the same time some strange form of freewill where our choices diverged."
-Freewill is limited or out of the question due to biological mechanisms and reasons, not because of a hypothesized mechanical universe. Different mechanisms of the universe in different scales display different qualities. This is why Reductionism doesn't always works and this is Complexity Science deals with Emergence and Chaos in Nature.
-"What does the "multiverse" live in? Some sort of ultra-meta space that is beyond time and space perhaps?
-The word used is "Cosmos".
-How is it possible that "nothing" can create anything other than "nothing"? Would that not be an oxymoron?"
-Of course it is an oxymoron, we agree. Nothing is not something so that something can come "out of it". Nothing is not a state of being so it can not be. Sure early philosophical attempts to understand the implication of the big bang lead people to include "nothing" in their metaphysics. Religion also tried to promote a powerful creator who created everything ...out of nothing.
The truth is that we don't have an example of "absolute nothing", so probably we are dealing with an absolute simplification of an idealistic concept .
-"Either that, "something was always here" which is sort of a begging of the question. Or that there must be that which is supernatural, which could have created time and space."
-False dichotomy. Something was always here or something was not always here. This is a true dichotomy. Your suggested "second choice" falls in the first category (something was always here).
You are suggesting that "Something was there and it magically made up the stuff for our universe. Then you you add one more quality, that of the "supernatural" and I don't know how you can make that demarcation or demonstration.
After all the supernatural, like nothing, have never been observer or verified so I don't see how one can use them to argue in favor of a creation out of nothing.
In essence you have an unparsimonious "not even wrong" statement that is disconnected from our current epistemology and with serious issues in logic and in its definitions.
None of the claims and qualities used in this "choice" qualify as philosophical in my opinion. This alternative choice fits in a theological forum.
-"Either we have eternal time and space, and endless "begging of the question", an infinite regression of something upon something...or we have a miracle."
-No. In order to make any claim about the time we first need to define time. Time is the phenomenon where processes don't happen all at once and with different rhythms/pace. Since the older process we can observe is the universe, we can not talk about other processes producing their own time.
So based on that definition if our universe is not the only one, time (unrolling processes) can be eternal in the Cosmic stage.
Space(like time) is a property of our Universe emerging from its specific properties. Maybe other universes might have time (since they would be evolving processes) but their properties might not allow physical space to emerge.(who knows!).
What I want to point out is, that "either and or" dichotomies are not the best way to understand the available choices. Errors are common in our attempt to introduce our worldview in the list of choices.
btw miracle is not an answer (like magic).
Calling a mystery (existence) a miracle answers nothing. Coming up with an answer that is constructed to address a question by pointing to magic/mystery/miracle isn't the goal of Philosophy.
Philosophy has to take the available epistemology and wise questions and answers.
None of our theology can be accused for "wisdom" when it comes to their contributions in epistemology, methods of knowledge(science/cosmology), aesthetics ethics or politics.
It is the crux given unto man. To venture into the external terrain.
The darkness obliges us to fulfill this intellectual endeavor, but I've found that outer space holds no difference from here on earth, nor the inner meditations of man.
Another question remains, how do we figure it out? What tools must be employed to dissect existence?
Will it be just a mathematics that was arisen from the friction of time?
Sounds like a violation of conservation of energy, no?
Well, which one is it? Is it a spontaneous emergence of energy violating law of conservation, or is it just a potentiality?
Where are these quantum fluctuations coming from?
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=7389&t=energy-creation-from-quantum-fluctuations#:~:text=Cerrito%2C%20CA%2C%20US-,A%3A,some%20external%20particle%20or%20force.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/#ixzz7PaeuUqOS
So it appears that matter is merely virtual and arises from quantum fluctuations of a quantum vacuum with no violation of conservation of energy. Nice :)
Now we will have to change existence from being matter and energy to it being quantum fluctuations.
The question of existence still remains...
Where do quantum fluctuations in the quantum vacuum come from? :)
If it comes from a potentiality, how is it that quantum potentialities exist without time and space?
If it exists in time and space then we will redefine existence as merely time and space. How does time and space create quantum potentialities?
-"The question of the origin of existence still persists. It won't go away by ignoring it or accepting it.
It is the crux given unto man. To venture into the external terrain."
-Of course it does! It's a classic "Begging the question" fallacy,but since we as organisms constanlty experience processes with a beginning and an end, we also make this unfounded assumption for an abstract concept.
-"The darkness obliges us to fulfill this intellectual endeavor, but I've found that outer space holds no difference from here on earth, nor the inner meditations of man."
- you have investigated the outer space in a degree that you can address concepts as existence?
-"Another question remains, how do we figure it out? What tools must be employed to dissect existence?''
-Tools that can produce objective evidence for our claims.
-"Will it be just a mathematics that was arisen from the friction of time?''
-Math like any tool and language of logic are acceptable to the GIGO effect (Garbage in Garbage out). In order for our reasoning, either through mathematical formulations or Basic Logic etc, to be meaningful and relevant, credible objective facts are needed as a foundation.
-"Well, which one is it? Is it a spontaneous emergence of energy violating law of conservation, or is it just a potentiality?"
-I will suggest to read more about it and why this observation was awarded(Nobel Prize). We can observe those virtual particles affecting particles of our universe. Their emergence is so brief that their energetic footprint isn't summed in our Universe.
-"So it appears that matter is merely virtual and arises from quantum fluctuations of a quantum vacuum with no violation of conservation of energy. Nice"
-Bad philosophical interpretations of facts.
-"Now we will have to change existence from being matter and energy to it being quantum fluctuations."
-Again matter(energy of this universe) is a change of state caused by a cataclysmic event 13.7 billion years ago. No Matter is not "merely virtual", matter is just an other state of the " same" energy.
-"The question of existence still remains...
Where do quantum fluctuations come from? "
Again I am not sure those are good questions or meaningful if existence if the only....... state of being for the cosmos and quantum fluctuations is its default energetic state allowing (now and then) changes and processes to emerge(like our universe) due to its fluctuations.
You are heading the question of the thread in a good direction, that of matching the physics to the philosophy for confirmation.
We note that the candidate for the base existent cannot be composite, for then it couldn't be fundamental since its parts would have to be more fundamental. This suggests that it has to be partless as well as of the least size. The quantum 'vacuum' fits the bill or is close to it. The base existent is therefore unbreakable, unmakeable, and thus eternal.
What’s Fundamental has to be partless,
Permanent, and e’er remain as itself;
Thus, it can only form temporaries
Onward as rearrangements of itself.
The Simplest can’t be made; it has no parts;
Likewise, it can’t break; ne’er ‘Nothing’ starts;
Thus, Necessity, without alternative,
Makes the Big Bang and our transient hearts.
All the temporary complexities
From the Eterne will someday fade away,
Even the universe with its grandness
Will disperse its greatness into blandness.
In between, the Basis sets a story
That gets lived by the mutable within,
As life and all the stars, moons, and planets—
In a book from the Babel Library.
What’s Fundamental has to be partless,
Lest its parts be more-so and it be less;
It’s ever, ne’er still, else naught could happen;
The quantum ‘vacuum’ weaves the universe’s dress.
The elementaries of a type are
The same, being woven by the same weave,
Only at the stable rungs of quanta;
They’re well anchored, but they’re secondary.
Are the fields spooky as non physical?
Since the elementaries are physical,
And because they are outright field quanta,
The quantum fields are purely physical.
Change, change, change… constant change, as fast as it
Can happen—the speed of light being foremost
The speed of causality—o’er 13 billion years now,
From the simple on up to the more complex.
The ‘vacuum’ has to e’er jitter and sing,
This Base Existent forced as something,
Due to the nonexistence of ‘Nothing’;
If it ‘tries’ to be zero, it cannot.
At the indefinite quantum level,
Zero must be fuzzy, not definite;
So it can’t be zero, but has to be
As that which is ever up to something.
(Perhaps more another time…)
-I am not sure of your conclusion. That sounds more of an idealistic belief than a product of observation and objective evaluation of facts.
I mean, humanity since Democritus was obsessed by the idea of finding the A- tomon (unbreakable) but nature constantly reminds us that our wishes are not how things work. We ended up with a quantum Zoo, new forces are suggested and indications of additional layers are surfaced all the time.
So I am not confident of your reasoning since it is in direct conflict with facts.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
-Again I am not sure of your first premise. "Partless" appears to be more of an observer relevant term than an intrinsic feature of the substrate. It appears to be more of a system than one "thing".
With the rest I have no issues.
-I Quoting PoeticUniverse
-Again "simplest" is a relevant term. Sure particles displaying kinetic properties are far simpler than biological and chemical properties produced by larger structures.....but still there are more than one particle. The same appears to be for the cosmic substrate...and I don't know if it is even reasonable to project our observations or our reasoning to a realm that we have no access.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
-The point is that "vacuum'' might not be the correct term in the case of the cosmos.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
- even being a Methodological Naturalist I would avoid the term physical. Physical is more of an emergent property of the energetic substrate so I would prefer the world Natural. Quantum fields display natural properties.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
- I generally agree with that. Its the most reasonable conclusion based on the meaning of those concepts and the available facts.
I don't see major disagreements in our positions.
Very interesting, but many people including myself have a hard time subscribing to a truly entropic universe, especially in light of what appears to be a constant and infinite expansion of the universe by way of dark energy.
"Is existent" isn't a predicate (Kant): The apple is existent. Problemo!
Kant's argument is that if existence is a predicate, an imagined object x would not be the same as that object (x) if it exists because it would have one additional property viz. existence that would preclude that equality. What this means is that an object I conceive of is no longer identical to that conceived of object existing. I can't, therefore, say of any imagined thing that it exists because they're now different. :chin:
I think this is equivalent to asking "What caused logical possibility (consistency) to be, and why?" Like, why is A identical to A (and not identical to that which is not A)? Logical possibility is a necessary fact. And some years ago I came to this big revelation: there is no difference between logical possibility and existence. Why? Simply because I don't see any difference between the two and I don't even know what that would mean.
Claiming that there is no difference between logical possibility and existence may seem absurd because you may readily point to an object, for example a tree in front of your house, and say "It is surely possible (logically consistent) that that tree over there would not exist, and yet it is there - hence, logical possibility and existence are not the same." To which I would say: "Um, no. It is not possible for that tree not to be there, because it would be a logical contradiction if a tree that is there was not there." It may be logically possible for there to be another world which looks exactly like ours except for that tree, but that would be another world, not this one.
So not only is existence necessary, but everything possible exists necessarily.
:clap:
That is probably the most sound argument that I've heard for existence! :)
Very interestingly, would this imply a lack of freewill?
If free will is possible (logically consistent) then it exists. But how is free will defined? Without definition there is nothing. If free will means that we can do what we want then we obviously have free will, at least to some extent. But even then, our actions would be completely determined by factors over which we have no control, in the sense that they would be determined by our wants and we cannot choose our wants. Or if we could choose our wants, we would need to want to choose the wants, so there would be a regress of wants that would either begin with a want that we wouldn't choose or it would be an infinite regress, which we wouldn't choose either because there would be no beginning to choose.
Very interesting.
Quoting litewave
So more specifically, using this line of logic, I offer the following example:
I have two options before me, I can choose to eat a white chocolate or I can choose to eat a strawberry chocolate. I choose the strawberry chocolate.
Therefore it was never possible to eat the white chocolate?
Let me give you a more visceral example as well:
Let us pretend that I am a female choosing to mate with my partner and have a baby, or I can decide that I do not want to have children and live a different life instead.
I choose to have a baby. Let's call him John.
Therefore I can tell John that it was never possible that he could not exist?
Clearly I had the option; I could choose to mate and have a baby, but I could also have chosen to not have children and live an entirely different life where John does not exist.
By following your logic, I never actually had a choice, John was going to live no matter what? Hence, no freewill?
Or maybe the more rational route Is that I did have a choice, and at that very point, there were two possibilities, one that John could exist and one that John could not exist. As you say, two different worlds. Once I chose to have John, I entered into the world where there was no other choice than for him to exist?
So it seems, (having worked out the very sound logic that you have given me) there is a world of infinite possibilities, but we have the power to choose which world gets created with every choice we make.
Truly fascinating. :)
Right, I think it never was.
Quoting chiknsld
Right. But still, you could do what you wanted to do, so in this sense you did a freely willed (wanted/desired) action.
Here is an even more compelling picture of necessity: everything that will happen has already happened, in the sense that every event is a part of a 4-dimensional topological object called spacetime, where time, mathematically/structurally, is just one of the dimensions, a special kind of space. Spacetime itself, with everything inside it, just exists, timelessly, eternally. It exists because it is a logically consistent object, a possible world.
Quoting chiknsld
If the world in which you have John and the world in which you don't have John were both possible worlds it would mean that both worlds exist. So you would both have and not have John, which would be a contradiction probably under any acceptable definition of "you". Theoretically, to make the situation logically consistent, you could define "you" as a collection of two persons, one of whom has John and the other doesn't, or you could define "you" as an object that is not conscious of being split into two conscious parts which are not conscious of each other and don't interact with each other and with each other's worlds. But who would care about such definitions of "you"?
But it seems possible for there to be two worlds that are the same (copies of each other), you live in one of them and another person who is exactly like you lives in the other, until the point where you mate and conceive John and the other person doesn't. From that point onward, of course, the two worlds would no longer be the same.
Ah, the never escapable fate. :)
There seems to be a necessary principle of composition, which means that if there are some objects, whatever they are, they automatically make up another object that is a collection or combination of those objects. And this larger object automatically combines with other objects into even larger objects, and so on. So every possible object is either composed of other objects or is a non-composite object. Pure set theory can in principle describe all these objects; non-composite objects are called empty sets and composite objects are non-empty sets that are built up from empty sets. Pure set theory is also a foundational theory for mathematics because it is able to represent all mathematical objects or properties (numbers, spaces, functions, etc.) as pure sets. That's why reality is necessarily mathematical.
But mathematics is just the structural aspect of reality, the relations between sets, or structures of relations. The objects that stand in those relations, the sets "in themselves", are something unstructured, partless (even though they stand in relations to objects that are their parts, that is, to the sets that compose them). The unstructured nature of objects in themselves may be the basis for the qualitative aspect of consciousness (qualia).
Very interesting. :)
Quoting litewave
It would certainly be interesting to investigate your hypothesis. You're saying that consciousness is comprised of qualia that which without there would be no consciousness?
Apparently consciousness consists of unstructured "stuffs" or qualities. For example the sensation of red color doesn't seem to be decomposable, although in the ontology where all objects are collections of other objects (or empty collections in the simplest case) even the sensation of red color is a collection that is composed of parts. Yet every collection is also an object in itself that is unstructured/partless and stands in composition relations to its parts. It is an object in itself that is not identical to any of its parts.
It may seem weird to say that a collection of objects is another object in itself. Like, if you have five apples, do you also have a sixth object that is a collection of those five apples? I think you do, although it doesn't seem to be a particularly noteworthy object. But even each apple is a collection of other objects, down to elementary particles like electrons and quarks which seem to be partless but definitely are not because that would mean they are empty sets and empty sets are all the same (which an electron and a quark are not, for example) and it seems impossible for an empty set to have properties like mass, electric charge or spin. Properties of a set are established by the set's structure and an empty set has no structure. So I think that even elementary particles have a structure although it may be physically inaccessible for us, or even physically inaccessible in general if laws of physics prevent the probing of such structure (for example, laws of physics seem to prevent probing of spatial distances smaller than so-called Planck length).
Some people think that collections are just "fictitious" objects and only non-composite objects (empty collections) are "real". That might be a psychological bias toward non-composite objects, caused by the fact that when our attention is splintered onto parts we lose the sense of an object as a whole.
Possible vs. Actual dichotomy? Unicorns are possible (don't entail a contradiction), but they don't actually exist, do they?
In other words, n(the set of possible worlds) > n(the set of actual worlds).
How do you know that they don't exist? They may exist on a different planet or in a different universe. They may also exist on Earth in the future. But since they don't exist here and now it would be a contradiction if they existed here and now - at a spacetime location where they don't exist.
:up: Let's keep our conclusions proportionate to the evidence! Proportio Divina
It would be a contradiction for unicorns to exist here and now.
What do you think the sensation is represented by? Energy perhaps?
Quoting litewave
What is the object made out of? Just energy? It cannot be an object if it doesn't have some sort of physicality or energy. Do you think the brain is responsible for everything? Might there be a soul that is helping out? Something beyond the brain?
Quoting litewave
Ah, I see.
Quoting litewave
I agree, a particle cannot be an example of nothing to something.
Quoting litewave
Have you explained the empty sets yet? Assuming there is no bias, what are they referring to as being real (regarding the empty set)?
Elementary 'particles' are directly quantum field quanta; there is no further structure. These field lumps of field excitations are conveniently called 'elementary particles', but they are not pinpoints and are spread out; an electron has a volume.
As for consciousness, see http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/19364/1/Physics-Time%20and%20Qualia%20-%20Smolin-Verde-7-24-2021-FINAL.pdf
Because they don't exist in the here and now?
1. Principle of Plenitude
2. Modal Realism
3. Many Worlds Interpretation
Apparently, qualities of our consciousness are qualities of spatiotemporal objects with causal relations. Energy in physics is generally defined as the ability of an object to exert a force, so it is a property of all objects that have causal relations.
Quoting chiknsld
In general, the quality of an object is just unstructured, monadic "something", "stuff". It is a non-relation that stands in relations to other non-relations. It is not necessary that every object has energy as there are logically consistent objects that have no causal relations; these objects are not a part of a spacetime. They may exist in a space without time or they may not even exist in a space. By the way, as I said, time is just a special kind of space. And a space is a special kind of collection that has a continuity between its parts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_space
Quoting chiknsld
I don't know. I can only say that if it is logically consistent for us to have a soul then we have it.
Quoting chiknsld
As any other set, an empty set too has a quality (an unstructured stuff) that stands in relations to qualities of other sets. But an empty set is a combination of no other sets, so it has no members, no relations to its members.
If the particles are spread out in space then they obviously have a spatial structure.
Yes, it would be a contradiction for unicorns to exist here and now because they don't exist here and now. If there is an object such as a spacetime whose definition includes that there is no unicorn at a location X inside it, it would be a contradiction if a unicorn was at the location X in such a spacetime. A spacetime with a unicorn at the location X would be a different spacetime, another spacetime.
Yes, which are the directly structure of the quantum field. That elementary particles go through two slits shows that they are field quanta, that is that they have a wave nature, which is also. in short, why there are stable rungs of quanta. We are getting close to the One, for a wave is continuous, having no parts. An electron given energy make quantum jumps in an atom, for its wave cannot just be cut at any old place but must become a multiple for it to remain intact.
I can see why some may still see quantum fields as a system, since there are 25 of them; however, the quantum vacuum that isn't a vacuum contains them all.
My view is that I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something". Another way to say this is that if you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"), you can't do this unless somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing". But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". This then gets back around to the idea that "something" has always been here except now there's a reason why: because even what we think of as "nothing" is a "something".
How can "nothing" be a "something"? I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together into a unit whole and, in so doing, defines what is contained within that new unit whole. This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually. This applies to even inside-the-mind groupings, like the concept of a car (also, fictional characters like Sherlock Holmes, etc.). For these, though, the grouping may be better thought of as the top-level label the mind gives to the mental construct that groups together other constructs into a new unit whole (i.e., the mental construct labeled “car” groups together the constructs of engine, car chassis, tires, use for transportation, etc.).
Next, when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics/math/logic, possible worlds/possibilities, properties, consciousness, and finally minds, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this supposed lack of all, we think that this is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, define the situation completely. This "nothing" would be it; it would be the all. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety/defined completely/whole amount/"the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. It's only once all things, including all minds, are gone does “nothing” become "the all" and a new unit whole that we can then, after the fact, see from the outside as a whole unit. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear.
Some other points are:
1. The words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "then"/"now" (i.e., "then something") in the first paragraph imply a temporal change, but time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation (e.g., "the lack of all"), and that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now".
2. It's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which no minds would be there. These are two different things. Logically, this is indisputable. In visualizing "nothing" one has to try to imagine what it's like when no minds are there. Of course, this is impossible, but we can try to extrapolate.
If anyone's interested, more details are at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/
Good one! I would stick with that.
Yes, indeed. Hi Roger!
Quoting Roger
Correct! Nothing is not something! :snicker:
Quoting Roger
Hmmm, that's interesting. A grouping of existence. :)
Quoting Roger
What grouping? I think you skipped that part, hehe. Nothing is not a grouping of anything. Existence was the grouping remember?
Quoting Roger
Ah, that's logic. :) Clever trick but logic cannot exist if there is nothing.
Not a grouping of existence, but I think a grouping is what causes something to exist. For instance, a grouping together of paper, ink and binding atoms creates a new unit whole called a book that's a separate existent entity than these atoms considered individually. A set exists because it's a grouping together of elements. The set is a different existent entity than the elements considered individually. This idea of a grouping being related to being, or existence, isn't new. Many refer to it as a unity or a bundle. For instance, Leibniz thought that "unity is the hallmark of a genuine substance" (SEP).
To me, when you get rid of all things, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this, this nothing would completely define the situation or be the all. A completely defined situation, or the all, are groupings just like a set exists if the elements in it are completely defined or all there. It's important to try and visualize what "nothing" would be like when the mind is not there. Of course, this is impossible, but I think that's the key step. In the existent mind, nothing just looks like nothing.
This isn't logic. It's the nature of the situation. Only later, do human minds invent logic to describe this situation.
You're saying that the first existential grouping is self-created?
How is there space without time?
Yep, that's what I think. Without having some thing that exists because of whatever's inherent to that thing, I think there will be an infinite regress of explaining one thing in terms of another. So, if "nothing" can, when thought of differently, be seen as an existent entity, this entity would be the beginning point of defining things in terms of other things.
Yes, I would agree that something is either self-created or that it was always here (infinite regression). :)
Do you think that this means existence is evolution itself?
Agreed! On this, we are in unity! :smile: It's a possibility that something has always been here, but to me, that seems unsatisfying since I still don't know what that thing is and why it's always been here. So, while possible, I'm going to ignore it. But, if time itself begins with a thing that's self-created, it also seems possible to say that thing has always been here?
Correct! :)
:up:
Beats me! Durability, a notion we're familiar with from advertisements on kitchenware.
As I said, a space is a special kind of collection that has a continuity between its parts. There is a rigorous definition of it in mathematics. A space also has dimensions, which is the number of coordinates necessary to specify a location inside the collection. According to theory of relativity, spacetime is a 4-dimensional space where one of the dimensions, which we call time, has somewhat different mathematical properties than the other three. So in mathematics there is no problem in defining a space, with an arbitrary number of dimensions, without time.
Interesting. :)
Quoting litewave
Ah, a mathematics that represents the real world (dimensions). So maybe in a computer that would help to model a 3-d virtual world, but I suppose those mathematics would be highly lacking in modeling anything close to reality? But I could just be very naïve to how far mathematics has come along.
Quoting litewave
Are you saying that mathematics exists? I will grant you that physical objects have properties that can be predicted by mathematics, but that's a far cry from saying that mathematics actually exists, right?
How do you make such a large leap, that you notice physical objects have mathematical properties, so then you say that mathematics exists? Are you saying that a complex system of description (mathematics) implies that descriptors exist? Does logic also exist, etc.?
What’s continuous means a field that waves,
Naught else; ‘Stillness’ is impossible.
A field has a changing value everywhere,
Since the ‘vacuum’ e’er has to fluctuate.
The fields overlap and some interact;
So, there is one overall field as All,
As the basis of all that is possible—
Of energy’s base motion default.
From the field points ever fluctuating,
Quantum field waverings have to result
From points e’er dragging on one another.
Points are bits that may form letter strokes.
As sums of harmonic oscillators,
Fields can only form their elementaries
At stable quanta energy levels;
Other excitation levels are virtuals.
Since the quantum fields are everywhere,
The elementaries, like ‘kinks’, can move
To anyplace in the realms of the fields.
As in a rope, only the quanta move.
At each level of organization
Of temporaries in the universe,
New capabilities become available,
And so they take on a life of their own
In addition to what gives rise to them.
The great needle plays, stitches, winds, and paves
As the strands of quantum fields’ webs of waves
That weave the warp, weft, and woof, uni-versed,
Into being’s fabric of Earth’s living braids.
Quantum fields are the fundamental strokes
Whose excitations at harmonics cloaks
The field quanta with stability
To persist and obtain mobility.
As letters of the Cosmic alphabet,
The elementary particles beget,
Combining in words to write the story
Of the stars, atoms, cells, and life’s glory.
Are there collections in reality? If so, then reality is mathematical because all mathematics can be expressed in collections. That's what pure set theory has shown.
Quoting chiknsld
Logic is just the principle of consistency. It just means that an object is what it is and is not what it is not. Logic is a necessary fact. And so are collections, because if there are some objects there is necessarily also a collection of them.
That's great! If quantum fields are "the basis of all that is possible" and "the fundamental strokes", who am I to argue with great literature?! I withdraw my previous criticism of physicists' nothing! :smile:
If you wrote that, nice writing!
Quoting litewave
I think you have done well in defending your position! :)
So how do we bridge the gap between mathematics and matter/energy? Are you saying that matter always existed and that it's impossible to know how mathematics gave birth to physical creation?
Will your answer be convenient? Or must there be mystery in life? Or is there a third option where we can figure out the complexities? I remember that you mentioned planck scale litewave, it sounds to me like you believe in "mystery".
If given only three options: convenience, complexity, or mystery, which would you choose?
You are adaptable, a good sign.
Everything is now physically known about our everyday lives:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07884.pdf
I'm not a big fan of Sean Carroll's because his final answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that it's a brute fact. I'm still going with my original nothing idea.
From link from the Physicists.
Ah, looks like has some competition from the Physicists.
Everything is physical.
Wow, consciousness is physical.
Oh goodness, astrology too.
Wow, consciousness is physical.
.
Mass/energy is the property of having causal relations to other objects, and causal relations are a special case of mathematical relations in spacetime where consequences logically follow from causes at a later point in the direction of time.
Quoting chiknsld
All possible collections exist timelessly by necessity, in virtue of being logically consistent. Times are just a special case of collections, among countless other possible collections.
Quoting chiknsld
Since reality consists of all possible objects, it is as complex as possible, maybe infinitely complex. We can say that in principle all the possible objects are collections, from the simplest, empty collections (non-composite objects) to maybe infinitely large collections. But it is another thing to understand all the collections, all their complex relations and all the possible worlds they constitute. According to Godel's incompleteness theorems a complex system such as one defined by pure set theory has uncountably many axioms (infinity of a higher degree than that of the set of natural numbers) and so cannot be logically proved to be consistent. And that means that it cannot be proved that the system exists. It seems to us so far that the system is consistent but we cannot be sure. We can only prove the consistency (and thus existence) of smaller, finite systems.
In addition to using pure reason, we can learn about reality by interacting with it (sensory perception). In fact, even if we knew all the possible collections by pure reason we would still not know in which of the collections we live, so we would need to look around ourselves to find that out. Our ability to interact with reality is of course limited. It seems that due to laws of quantum mechanics and gravity it is not possible to interact with distances smaller than Planck length and Planck time. We also cannot interact with parts of our universe that recede from us faster than light due to expansion of the universe and we cannot interact with other universes or collections that are not causally connected to us. Another problem is that we can only consciously experience that which is in our mind, so not directly the outside world but just its representations in our mind based on perceptual inputs.
What would make it such that The Existent has no alternative? There can't be a sequence in time from 'Nothing' that has no time nor has anything.
I already said my view, which you had previously quoted, that the seeming temporal change from "nothing" to "something" is like an artifact imposed by our minds. That is, "that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now".
Good job!
Quoting litewave
Nice. :)
Quoting litewave
Indeed. Odd that you did not choose "mystery". Btw, did you have any interest in that paper? :lol:
So, the mind makes a false artifact, thinking that a lack of anything can have being. This leaves The Existent to have no opposite and no alternative. Parmenides said that 'Nothing' cannot even be meant.
The weave of the quantum fields as strokes writes
The letters of the elemental bytes—
The alphabet of the standard model,
Atoms then forming the stars’ words whose mights
Merge to form molecules, as the phrases,
On to proteins/cells, as verse sentences,
In to organisms ‘stanza paragraphs,
And to the poem stories of the species.
Of this concordance of literature,
We’re the Cosmos’ poetic adventure,
Sentient poems being unified-verses,
As both the contained and the container.
We are both essence and form, as poems versed,
Ever unveiling this life’s deeper thirsts,
As new riches, through strokes, letters, phonemes,
Words, phrases, and sentences—uni versed.
We have rhythm, reason, rhyme, meter, sense,
Metric, melody, and beauty’s true pense,
Revealed through life’s participation,
From the latent whence into us hence.
Oh, those imaginings of what can’t be!
Such as Nought, Stillness, and Block’s decree,
As well as Apart, Beginning, and End,
Responsibility, Free Will, and Theity.
Good for Parmenides, but I'll do my own thinking.
Missed this! :lol:
On the one hand, the idea of collections is as non-mysterious as it gets. On the other hand, it fascinates me that a collection is something different from any of its members and this "something" is unstructured (because the structure is constituted by the relations of this "something" to its members, which are other "somethings"). Intuitively I would expect that the "something" (quality) of the collection somehow subsumes the "somethings" (qualities) of its members, because structurally the collection is made up of its members and relations between objects are established by properties of the objects (and simultaneously, properties of the objects are established by the relations, as neither objects nor relations between them come first in a timeless reality). The qualities seem mysterious and ineffable but are inseparable from the relations in which they stand.
As for the paper by Sean Carroll, I once thought of the idea that a soul could be made of unknown particles/fields that normally interact very weakly with known particles/fields, and that's why physicists have not noticed them yet, but the interaction could be significantly amplified in certain complex objects such as a human brain. Again, the amplified influence of the unknown particles/fields would escape our attention, this time because due to the sheer messy complexity of the brain we would not know whether its behavior is completely caused by known particles/fields. The mechanism of amplification would be resonance between the soul and the brain. I don't know if it's possible, the amplification would have to be huge.
Ah, very interesting. :)
Quoting litewave
Yes, this idea seems to be floating around in the ether right now.
If we ran a simulation of our universe it might be proven that it is a CYCLICAL event. That time is perpetual. That this energy and that energy comes from some other energy. There are principles in science that point to this 1. Conservation of energy principle. 2. Expanding and contracting energies of the universe. 3. Impossibility of absolute zero.
So we might be able to know where atoms (and their parts) originate through simulation, and we'd know whether time is perpetual or not through simulation.
We are probably even thinking about this wrong, "where do things come from if they come from themselves?" Huh? It seems language is causing this linguistic problem when talking about causality and ontology.
Here is an account of simulation theory - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wrhDaM4C5c
It does not seem that we are eternal. We seem to have a static starting point. There is no proof that we come from anything. In fact the only thing that supports such fanciful ideas is our inception within the womb of the mother.
The easy assumption is that the universe is eternal, but we can never escape the fact that nothingness should actually exist and thus there is a mystery that needs to be revealed to us. Our life is a striving to discover this mystery.