Something Instead of Nothing

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.

Well, it seems reasonable to suggest that the universe did in fact exist for billions of years without our existence. But then that gets you thinking about the first conscious entities to ever have existed at all.

And then the extent to which matter conscious of itself as matter able to ponder and to probe questions like this can ever be wholly explained.

And, in particular, in a No God universe.

How exactly does one wrap their head around a universe in which there are in fact no entities around able to even broach the idea of existence itself? Let alone explain it.

A universe that truly reflects just the “brute facticity” of existing.

Period.

Nothing more to be said because nothing more can be said.

And, even with regard to those able to say something, having no way in which to really know beyond all doubt if they were ever really free to not say it.

We just keep coming back to all those things that seem impossible to explain that, in fact, may or may be explainable at all.

And then the extent to which matter conscious of itself as matter able to ponder and to probe questions like this can ever be wholly explained.

The space time continuum takes care of periods of unconsciousness, not clearing the slate, but constantly generating other receptacles of receivers of newer and newer realities.
The temporal spans are as enormous as they are, near infinity their stretch changes their rate of change to near absolute, creating a sense of stillness, or a sense of near eternity. This sense is being challenged by artificial inventions of motion, which makes everything smaller , and unbelievably real , challenging the aesthetic necessity for man"s God nature. Men are fearful to return to a punishing God.

Iambiguous- sorry, the paraphrase belongs to You, I miscopied.

They speak of 3 kinds of singularities, those of the cosmological-astrophisical of black holes, of the coming of a cognitive-cyber singularity , and the coming of god, a god hidden within the strange metaphoric being of. a higher form of energy.

You make a claim like this and all I can do is to keep pointing out that while you believe it is true in your head, you have no capacity that I am aware to actually demonstrate why all rational human beings are obligated to believe the same.

Unless of course you can demonstrate it.

I look around me at a world that is bursting at the seams with conflicting goods. Historically, there were communities in which the community itself was the fundamental hub in the wheel. Today that is only more or less the case. Depending on where you go across the globe.

And, sure, you can always fall back on a word like “inevitable” when you need to “prove” that your argument, while not borne out today, will be borne out at some point in the future.

Okay, that is a “general description” of human interactions that seems reasonable to me. It reflects one aspect of “the human condition” embedded in that particular “somethingness” of which we are a part today. But it doesn’t make conflicting goods go away. And it it is but one of many such narratives proposed as a way of explaining existence as we know it today.

On the other hand, how close have you actually been to death? The falling over into the abyss that becomes nothingness for all of eternity death. Not death the intellectual contraption.

And the bottom line [mine] is that in a world awash in contingency, chance and change, any new experience, relationship or access to new knowledge and information, might reconfigure your own particular “I” in any number of ways.

The part about dasein – “I” as an existential contraption – in other words.

But the bottom line that you may well embody is that whatever you are able to convince yourself is true in your head here and now “works” if it provides you with some measure of comfort and consolation.

So, for all practicial purposes, here and now, you have “licked” death. You can deal with it in ways that others [like me] are not able to.

But two crucial things still prevail in my view:

1] neither of us are able to close the gap between what we think is true here and all that can be known about existence in order to be absolutely certain beyond all doubt
2] neither of us are able to demonstrate with absolute certainty that the words that we are exchanging here were not the only words we were ever able to exchange

First, let me ask you this…

This post was but one of a torrent of posts that you submitted yesterday. What on earth prompted that? It is usually something that the Kids here punish us with. And I certainly don’t construe you to be a part of that gang.

Existence because you made it so? Solipsism? I’m but another “character” created by your “will”? I don’t understand because I was never able to understand what you will?

Or, like God, do you embody your very own mysterious ways? Your posts just being too deep for the likes of folks like me.

Or, as the Tragically Hip once put it…

“Interesting and sophisticated
Refusing to be celebrated
It’s a monumental big screen kiss
It’s so deep it’s meaningless”

Are you just being ironic here? Or were you actually able to convince yourself that all of this comes closest to explaining whatever it is that you are trying to explain about existence?

In any event, what interest me is the extent to which you can relate it to the life that you live from day to day.

They being those no less embedded [problematically] in the gap between what they can in fact prove to be true and all that must be proven in order to explain existence itself.

As with a God, the God, my God is there the scientific equivalent of a singularity, the singularity, my singularity.

Mine being the only one able to explain existence.

I don’t know, only that the singularity of AI is forecasted to be in a decade, around 2025, wherein would the underlying relationship between the ways of experiencing affinity between the three, become more of a certainty.That’s based on the yearly doubling of the amount of progressive accumulation of present and future depositions of knowledge.

And yes, god can, according to this almost prophetic idea, the definitions can be changed to include any two within the third form, but the worn out nature of positivist philosophy is not expected to survive into the next generation. This surmise s as well the collusive nature of culpability , belief and the rate of accumulated information.

The symbol of Orobourus comes to mind here.