Something Instead of Nothing

Okay, but let’s imagine a context.

Someone is thinking about Trump shutting down the government here in America unless he gets what he wants regarding his wall on the border with Mexico. How does the “art of philosophy” figure in here given that different people see and hear different [often conflicting] things about it?

The point [mine] is to take that “process of thought” out into the world of human interactions such that the for all practical purposes “implications” part can be described and encompassed more substantively.

Which you steer clear of almost entirely. It’s words and not worlds that you seem most comfortable with.

So, all I am trying to figure is what on earth something like this…

…might possibly come to mean to those folks who actually have something at stake should Trump get his wall. Maybe some of the parents will even get their children back.

And then on this thread how our speculations might be grappled with given the quandary embedded in “something instead of nothing” and in our capacity to even exchange these posts autonomously.

What you can actually do is a subset of what you would want to do because pragmatism is more limited
than idealism and so ultimately all choices are between actual possibilities not theoretical possibilities

What determines your preference for one possibility over another depends on multiple factors and especially
what the possibilities are in relation to each other and what objections if any there may be to some of them

With the choice being between all actual possibilities the reason for choosing one over another may not even be practical but something else such as moral
There are no objectively right and wrong choices here only subjective ones and the one which is chosen will for you be the least harmful choice of them all

Another way to look at it: With pragmatism, our choices are multiplied considerably because we are not obligated to behave in accordance to one or another God, one or another political ideology, one or another deontological philosophical contraption or one or another assessment of “natural” behaviors.

Idealism [objectivism] often revolves around reconfiguring the is/ought world into but another manifestation of the either/or world.

It’s just that with determinism the laws of matter themselves are the propelling and compelling force. “I” is only another domino toppling over onto all the other ones. But “I” is like no other matter that has ever been. Right?

Well, assuming that “I” is in possession of at least some capacity to choose freely, I agree. That’s when I make what I construe to be that crucial distinction between the either/or and the is/ought world. Between those things that appear to be “in fact” true for all of us, and those things that seem predicated more on the manner in which I construe identity, value judgments and political economy at the existential intersection of a particular context.

Morality, however, is, for all practical purposes, an “existential contraption” in my view. It is rooted out in a particular world historically, culturally, experientially. A profoundly problematic intertwining of genes and memes. And ever evolving over time in a world of contingency, chance and change.

Yes, but out in the world that we live in socially, politically and economically, what is construed by you to be the least harmful choice may well be deemed anything but by others.

Here I am in my “hole”. I have come to conclude that the choices we make here are the embodiment of dasein, interacting with other daseins in a world awash in conflicting goods such that what counts in the end are those who have the actual political power to enforce one set of behaviors over another.

“I” for me here is fractured and fragmented. I am not able to even imagine anymore a moral or political foundation into/onto which I can anchor my sense of identity. Instead, the world around me appears to be essentially meaningless on this side of the grave; only to topple over into oblivion on the other side.

But I have no way in which to assess the accuracy of this frame of mind because a complete understanding of it would surely be connected inherently to a complete understanding of existence – this something instead of nothing at all – itself.

I don’t even seem to have access to a complete understanding of whether anything that I am typing here and now was only ever what I could be typing here and now.

And yet there are still those here who argue that I am the smug one. I’m the one convinced that others here should think like I do.

But how on earth would I ever go about the business of demonstrating it?

I’m in the same boat that everyone else is in. I just think about it [here and now] differently.

Yet another take on all this: youtu.be/c-QkJUxcGt8

1] the claim is made that physicists “know that virtual particles can come into existence from the nothingness of space”.

But [it seems] the physicists are observing this in the somethingness that they are a part of. The space around us would seem to be a manifestation of a somethingness that does exist. How could actual nothingness itself ever be encountered?

2] the “deeper questions”: “why is there quantum mechanics, why are there laws of physics instead of no laws of physics, no thing at all?”

Here he is left with this as an explanation: 'Why not?"

In other words, we still have no capacity to answer that question much beyond acknowledging that “I think, therefore I am”, in this particular “something”.

The point is that this is not likely to be a question in which an answer/the answer will ever be pinned down. At least not anytime soon. We just have to accept the “brute facticity” of the universe.

As for time itself it is argued here by some that given the big bang and the “inflation” that resulted in the universe as we think we understand it today, it all required a “beginning”. To which Carroll responds “they’re wrong.”

But the chuckle that follows indicates just how far he and all the rest of us are from actually knowing the answer. In other words, we have competing conjectures predicated [in the end] on certain assumptions that are made.

Not unlike what unfolds here.

Carroll’s own “bottom line” here and now: “My favorite cosmological model which is always subject to update when new ideas or data come in, the universe doesn’t have a beginning, it did not come into existence at a moment in time, it always existed. It looks different from moment to moment and we are only observing a tiny part of it so we don’t even know what the whole thing looks like.”

This guy I like becasue he comes back time and again to all the “unknown unknowns” that stand between the question and the answer.

And then this part: teleology.

In other words, is any of this necessary? The ultimate “why?” question.

Carroll doesn’t think so.

So, there could have been nothing but it just so happened [for reasons we do not understand] that there was something instead. Though, according to Carroll, it was probably not necessary that it be this something.

David Pierce presents an equally compelling argument.Which is more convincing, and/or likely?

“But the chuckle that follows indicates just how far he and all the rest of us are from actually knowing the answer. In other words, we have competing conjectures predicated [in the end] on certain assumptions that are made.”

So, did David Pierce chuckle or not? :wink:

That would only he would know, if even that.

Free will is a consequence of you making a choice that others may disagree with but equally so others may make choices you disagree with
But as long as the choices do not directly or indirectly impact negatively upon others then the one making them should be allowed to do so

Everything is in a constant state of motion so what you type now will not be the same as what you type at any other time
Even if you type the same words you will be doing so in a different time and space from the last time that you typed them

We are all indeed in the same boat and we all think differently both compared to each other and to ourselves at other times

I think a choice is less dimensional than that. Choices need to be redacted , except to the one which is in conflict from one person to the other.
Lets say my choices regarding a certain course of action is either to do or avoid doing it.

Basically, I can either go outside or stay in of it rains. There is no two ways about it. If, we so not surmise choice as a problem of duality, but start with innumerable choices relating to many courses of action , then the problem becomes prevy to the objection, that since so many choices abound, the will to do something as opposed to another will be a matter of finding the most preferable course, where preference seeks to clarify as to why such course is preferred.

The being/nothingness of human action does not gear up to preferential choices, it confirms to necessary ones, relating to such choices which determine the actual status of the choice itself. The why is not determinate once the choice is made preferentially.

If it rains I choose not to go out.
This needs no further explanation. , because it speaks for itself. Everyone most likely would understand why , as opposed to another example and choose accordingly.

Going into a confectionery, a young lady is asked to choose between types of chocolates, candy, cakes and cookies. There is a whole array of choices and the question as to how free she is to choose, depend on her own taste, that of whomever she is with, and after suggesting this or that particular choice, the girl even at this point can not choose anything at all, since the conditional of her choice has not been as of yet confirmed. Her mom or her companion may say that she has not the the money to buy, as she first thought, or the girl may change her mind about finding a preferred choice.

There may not be the suggested conflict of choice, as of yet, because the necessity of making a choice has not been as of yet been intended.

If, it is proposed that a person stays in or goes out in spite of the rain, the intention has been ascertained , and that person can not at that point say I will do neither, since, there is no other choice.

The plentitude of choices will never intersect with other’s in this example , it will always be an individual choice necessitated by the only person who must make it, since he made it.

It would lead the analyst into the absurd proposition, like ‘i love strawberries but I don’t eat them’ into the manifold problem of further qualifications, which usually not necessary in a sensible world.

Wouldn’t it be more sensible for a person who will not eat strawberries to qualify why not, by expressing a health problem associated with eating them in the first place?, or , being out of season hence unaffordable, or some such, become a primary expressed qualifier?

I don’t see conflict on an inquiry into the analysis of qualifiers, as that which exist in a dualistic system where doing it or not manifests a necessity , where doing it or not has no contingent measures to enable its performance.

Another more close to home example is abortion. If not performing an abortion on a woman has a good chance to risk her life, the choices are no longer qualifiable by such , as.: her familie’s attitudes about abortion, or the view of a bias in a doctor or hospital with religious preferences.
There is no conflict here relating the necessity of aborting or not based on conflicting qualifiers.
If such way of.argument should bear different results, then , the argument is clothes in inauthentic forms, and becomes fallacious.
The authenticity of argument becomes a primary qualifier,
leaving the existential problem unsolved. The so called conflict in values is always formed as a secondary derivative , not primarily of necessity, but contingency.

A contingent conflict is more of a.rationalization to avoid doing something or not. Its a.way to postpone or deny authentic choice.

In other words, you are merely assuming that this particular something that we all live in “here and now” allows for the emodiment of free will on the part of those life forms [the human species] with minds able to go beyond mere “instinct”. But how is it demonstrated definitively that what we agree or disagree with reflects some level of autonomy?

Allowed to by what or who? God? The laws of nature? “I”? And, again, even assuming autonomy how do we differentiate positive from negative behaviors? Sure we can note objectively that John construes your behavior in a particular context as either good or bad. But what if Jane construes it in the opposite way? How do we determine in an autonomous universe for life forms such as ours what is in fact [rationally, virtuously] the “right thing to do”?

And that’s before we get to the part about dasein and political economy.

True. But how is that relevant to determining if, on either occasion, we were free to type different words instead? Do we think differently here of our own volition or not?

Next up…

philosophytalk.org/blog/why … er-nothing

This would seem to revolve around that crucial distinction between ontology and teleology. The “reason” being just another way of broaching the “purpose” of existence. And purpose implies intent. The universe is intended to exist as it does because God or His equivalent in Nature willed it to be as it is.

Thus the “brute facticity” of existence gives way to a frame of mind able to at least imagine “the meaning of existence”; or even an existence after death. It’s all just part of some transcendent understanding beyond our reach here and now.

Is there really any actual way around this? Other than a leap of faith to one or another religious denomination?

On then to the “cause”:

And this is particularly troubling for some. If we cannot discern either the reason or the cause, existence itself will ever remain just this profoundly problematic “thing” that we take to the grave with us. And, with this essentially meaningless frame of mind, it’s harder to imagine something for “I” beyond the grave.

This part:

On the other hand:

Or are objections of this sort rooted more in human psychology? A deep seated need hard-wired into us genetically for there to be a reason for existing. A reason that carries on beyond the grave.

And isn’t this the part that convinces us that that we do have some say [autonomously] in coming up with particular answers?

The very fact that we can disagree and have different points of view is evidence of individual autonomy
Absolute autonomy however is not an option as the free will we do have comes with specific limitations

Whether the Universe is for life forms or not is entirely irrelevant as it just is regardless of whatever intelligence it might actually contain
Rationally and virtuously are at all the same because while the former can be explained by logic the latter can only explained by emotion
The fact of the matter is that there is no objective way for demonstrating the right thing to do for it can only be subjectively determined

I agree that viscerally, intuitively it certainly seems that way. But in dreams I am in turn absolutely convinced that “in the moment” I – “I” – am freely choosing what I do.

Unless of course “me” in my dreams is very different from “you” in your dreams from “others” in their dreams.

I presume this frame of mind may or may not be related to what some call “psychological freedom”. This psychological freedom then being [for some] “compatible” with a metaphysically determined world. The fact is that we do choose some things rather than others. Even if we were never able to choose other than as we did.

I have simply never been able to grasp this sort of “compatibility”.

Those hypothetical aliens up in their actual autonomous segment of the universe look down upon earthlings in their wholly determined segment and note that we think and feel that we are choosing autonomously…but we’re not.

And I agree that given some measure of autonomy it can never be absolute. We can’t just do what we will ourselves to do. The individual will is embodied out in a particular world understood in a particular way. Here there is the either/or world in which objective truths seem able to be established for all of us, and the is/ought world where [from my frame of mind] “I” is considerably more an existential contraption.

Sure, with regard to anything that we think and feel we can always fall back on “it just is”. As though that in and of itself explains why it is this something and not another. And how that in turn definitively encompasses why there is something instead of nothing at all.

But at least psychologically merely believing that “it just is” is enough to offer a particular “I” some measure of comfort and consolation.

Unless of course you are an objectivist of the Ayn Rand school. A capital letter Objectivist.

And I challenge anyone here using only logic to explain why there can only be something instead of nothing. And why it can only be this something and not another.

Logic it would seem is only applicable to that matter able to evolve into minds able to invent philosophy able to grapple with “rules of language” used in communicating what is said to be rational or irrational thinking.

But even here how would you go about demonstrating that beyond all doubt? How can we know for certain that moral and political narratives are not in fact just existential contraptions rooted out in particular worlds historically, culturally and experientially?

Here and now I certainly think this is a reasonable assumption. But then the gap between what I think I know about it and all that can be known about it going all the way back to an ontological understanding of existence itself doesn’t go away.

I cannot give a logical reason only a scientific one : absolute nothing cannot persist because it will be be violated by quantum fluctuations
And this is why there always has to be something rather than nothing though the type of something would be random rather than specific
There is no reason for example why we have to exist : we just do. But the Universe itself would still have to exist in one form or another

And, …the universe could not’ exist’ without our existence.

A species with a highly developed pre frontal cortex such as us will inevitably discover sophisticated means for how to live both individually and collectively
This is where morality [ individually ] and politics / philosophy / religion [ collectively ] come from. Ontology [ a branch of philosophy ] features in this also

As these states deal with the human condition then existentialism will feature within them and the basic driver for all this is an attempt to understand our place in the grand scheme of things and especially because of our mortality which can make it all seem entirely meaningless. So religion was invented in order to overcome
our fear of death. Whether it is actually true or not is another matter but it is for many an antidote to the otherwise aforementioned meaninglessness of existence

However an alternative view [ one I subscribe to ] is that nothing truly matters only in the here and now. Our existence is important to us even though we are only
passing through. But from the perspective of the Universe it makes precisely zero difference whether we exist or not and eventually we shall be extinct and be no
more. This all sounds very depressing but it is only so if you let it be. For me the inevitability of non existence is something I simply accept without question. Even
more so as there is nothing to be afraid of in an eternal state of death

The world could indeed not at all exist, nothing would exist, except that I made it so.

Its not logically understandable for you, my creations. It’s just my will.

Why do I exist? Because you don’t understand.

Differentiating logical from rational/reasonable thinking here can get tricky. And now differeniating either one from scientific thinking?

I’ve always associated logic with the “rules of language”. And that is only pertinent to matter that has evolved into minds like ours.

So it would seem that before the advent of human consciousness [or the equivalent in alien life forms] making such distinctions would literally have been unthinkable.

And yet few doubt that “something” existed long before there were minds around to question it.

So, in a mindless universe, what would it mean to suggest that “absolute nothing cannot persist because it will be be violated by quantum fluctuations”.

My own bottom line here is that science came into existence [on earth] billions of years after our own particular somethingness came into existence after the Big Bang.

But, again: Whatever that might possibly mean going all the way back to an ontological explanation for existence itself.

Science would seem to be no less circumscribed – circumvented? – by Hume’s distinction between correlation and cause and effect.

But how on earth would you go about demonstrating this either logically, rationally or scientifically?

Other then by merely insisting that this is what you happen to believe “here and now” in your head.