You cannot simply expect all rational men and women to accept as true what you yourself accept as true
Apart from anything else it is beyond the ability of anyone to convince anyone of anything because they can only do that themselves
The best thing to do is make your arguments as sound as possible and leave others to decide whether or not they should accept them
That’s my point. But there are clearly any number of things in the either/or world that can be reasonably demonstrated to be true for all of us. Unless of course even this truth is embedded in a sim world, or a dream world, or one or another Matrix type reality.
In fact last night the Science Channel aired a Doc in which it was suggested that what we construe to be reality is instead just a computer simulation.
But: in the is/ought world, moral and political values are seen by me and my ilk to be largely “existential contraptions”.
And, re this thread, the truth behind something instead of nothing is so mind-boggling, no one would seem able to go much beyond the assumptions you’ll find [even among scientists] in “wild ass guesses”.
The fact that some are more informed than others doesn’t make them any less embedded in the gap between what some think they know now and all that can be known.
Apart from anything else it is beyond the ability of anyone to convince anyone of anything because they can only do that themselves
In reality however we go about the business of interacting with others in many, many different ways in many, many different contexts without having to stop and insist that others must first convince them that what they say or do is in fact true.
The best thing to do is make your arguments as sound as possible and leave others to decide whether or not they should accept them
Indeed, but, again, out in the world of actual human interactions, there are any number of contexts in which arguments collide such that resolutions revolve around either might makes right, right makes might, or moderation, negotiation and compromise is seen to reflect the best of all possible worlds.
And, here, over and again, I say bring the arguments down to earth. What are we in fact able to demonstrate as true for all of us? And what might we have to conclude are beyond pinning down?
Something instead of nothing being just one of them.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
By Robert Adler
From the BBC Earth website
Space-time, from no space and no time
From tiny things like atoms, to really big things like galaxies. Our best theory for describing such large-scale structures is general relativity, Albert Einstein’s crowning achievement, which sets out how space, time and gravity work.
Relativity is very different from quantum mechanics, and so far nobody has been able to combine the two seamlessly. However, some theorists have been able to bring the two theories to bear on particular problems by using carefully chosen approximations.
I think this speak volumes regarding the gap between what we think we know about nothing/something and what is yet to be known.
It’s then just a matter of how big that gap is.
In other words, here we here in this somethingness still perplexed about the relationship between the very, very small and the very, very large. And it seems reasonable to suggest that until we have a handle on somethingness, nothingness or not nothingness remains out of reach.
The approximations here are beyond – way beyond – the grasp of most of us. But they are in turn beyond – perhaps way beyond – the grasp of those who do understand them. At least insofar as being able to intertwine them in the explanation for existence itself.
And how far is the gap here from the gap that separates this explanation from the far more profound mystery of teleology. Describing what existence is may or may not allow us to understand if there is a meaning or a purpose “behind” it.
Right! That is why sensibility far outweighs any form of identification of variables within even the analysis of structural and compatible variances.
at the moment. Any form of o objectification of variables is merely projectively identifiable.
That’s my point. But there are clearly any number of things in the either/or world that can be reasonably demonstrated to be true for all of us.
As he points out, no one can convince all rational people about most beliefs, including things that you or even most people would consider reasonably demonstrated.
Unless of course even this truth is embedded in a sim world, or a dream world, or one or another Matrix type reality.
In fact last night the Science Channel aired a Doc in which it was suggested that what we construe to be reality is instead just a computer simulation.
And here you give evidence that this is true. That even quite fundamental a scientific assumptions are questioned within science. There are some scientists who think we can say it is probable we are in a simulation. And depending on what kind of simulation, the theists could be right about a lot of things, for all practical purposes, for example. Depending on the nature of the programmers and if they intervene and break the ‘natural laws’ for example.
And, here, over and again, I say bring the arguments down to earth. What are we in fact able to demonstrate as true for all of us?
What are we in fact able to demonstrate as true to all of us and for all of us? Nothing. We can demonstrate away, but there will be hold outs on everything. Certainly about this assertion of mine.
That’s my point. But there are clearly any number of things in the either/or world that can be reasonably demonstrated to be true for all of us.
As he points out, no one can convince all rational people about most beliefs, including things that you or even most people would consider reasonably demonstrated.
Yeah, that will always be true. But we still need a context in which something thought to be true for all people – the laws of nature, say – are in fact demonstrated [to the best of one’s ability] to be true for all people.
Relationships in the either/or world are often demonstrated to be true for all of us through such things as actual technology or engineering feats. Or through the tools available to scientists employing the scientific method.
It’s just that when such demonstrations are attempted regarding relationships in the is/ought world, or relationships involving such interactions as in the topic being discussed on this thread, there is no technology or engineering feats [yet] able to pin it down such that most rational people are obligated to agree.
Then this part…
Unless of course even this truth is embedded in a sim world, or a dream world, or one or another Matrix type reality.
In fact last night the Science Channel aired a Doc in which it was suggested that what we construe to be reality is instead just a computer simulation.
And here you give evidence that this is true. That even quite fundamental a scientific assumptions are questioned within science. There are some scientists who think we can say it is probable we are in a simulation. And depending on what kind of simulation, the theists could be right about a lot of things, for all practical purposes, for example. Depending on the nature of the programmers and if they intervene and break the ‘natural laws’ for example.
Over and over and over again, I point out that until it is determined that the folks here on planet Earth have the capacty to grasp an understanding of existence itself, none of us are able to pin down finally the most comprehensive manner in which to understand the relationship between the either/or world, the is/ought and the something/nothing connundrum as this is applicable to what we call “the human condition”.
Until then the scientists and the philosophers and the theists are all in the same boat.
And, here, over and again, I say bring the arguments down to earth. What are we in fact able to demonstrate as true for all of us?
What are we in fact able to demonstrate as true to all of us and for all of us? Nothing. We can demonstrate away, but there will be hold outs on everything. Certainly about this assertion of mine.
I basically agree. Sans an understanding of existence itself, we can never really be absolutely certain of anything that we claim is true. We can only come closer to a context in which more rather than less agree that some things certainly appear to be truer than other things.
I can claim that it is true objectively that Don Trump is president of the United States. Unless, perhaps, between the time I make this claim and the time you react to it, Don Trump has died from a heart attack.
And I can claim that it is true that Don Trump is a great president. And I can claim that it is true that Don Trump thinks and feels and says and does things solely in sync with the immutable laws of matter in a determined universe. etc.
But how would these sorts of things be demonstrated such that rational mem and women are obligated to share the belief?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
By Robert Adler
From the BBC Earth website
A universe from a bubble
So it’s not just particles and antiparticles that can snap in and out of nothingness: bubbles of space-time can do the same. Still, it seems like a big leap from an infinitesimal space-time bubble to a massive universe that hosts 100 billion galaxies. Surely, even if a bubble formed, it would be doomed to disappear again in the blink of an eye?
But this sort of speculation just brings me back to the seeming fact that they are not snapping in and out of nothingness if this snapping in and out takes place in the somethingness that we call the universe.
The problem for me is that it is simply not possible to grasp [let alone to actually articulate] nothing at all. How is one to wrap words around it such that there is even the remote possibility of moving beyond the words into the realm of demonstating a reality where nothing empirical exists at all?
Most physicists now think that the universe began with the Big Bang. At first all the matter and energy in the universe was crammed together in one unimaginably small dot, and this exploded. This follows from the discovery, in the early 20th century, that the universe is expanding. If all the galaxies are flying apart, they must once have been close together.
Even here though, the small dot, the singularity, is something. And flying apart forever or coming back together for the Big Crunch, the galaxies are always something “inside” something that encompasses them all. Or in a somethingness – a multiverse – that encompasses an infinate nunber of universes.
Always and everywhere is something.
Yet even more mindboggling [for those like me] is in trying to wrap our heads around the idea that, however big or small this something is, how can it be grasped other than as inside something else. How can space-time be everything when everything else we can point to is inside [or intertwined with] something else?
Yeah, that will always be true. But we still need a context in which something thought to be true for all people – the laws of nature, say – are in fact demonstrated [to the best of one’s ability] to be true for all people.
I would say that at any given time this is the case. To the best of some people’s ability - scientists, whoever - it is being demonstrated, with whatever success this leads to. I am not sure we ‘need a context in which…’ etc. We might need it for some specific (unnamed here) goal. Though determining that we need that seems to me as problematic as anything thing else. Some people want that.
Relationships in the either/or world are often demonstrated to be true for all of us through such things as actual technology or engineering feats. Or through the tools available to scientists employing the scientific method.
Though in the latter case there is still internecine disagreement about all sorts of stuff, as you and the thread point out. And utterly fundamental stuff. As far as the former, sure. Most people can see that we have learned to make stuff using scientific research and engineering. What this means about all sorts of is issues is unclear.
It’s just that when such demonstrations are attempted regarding relationships in the is/ought world, or relationships involving such interactions as in the topic being discussed on this thread, there is no technology or engineering feats [yet] able to pin it down such that most rational people are obligated to agree.
Ah, we agree. yes, we don’t know what these feats mean about metaphysics, the nature of reality, what can’t be true, much of what is true and so on.
Then this part…
Over and over and over again, I point out that until it is determined that the folks here on planet Earth have the capacty to grasp an understanding of existence itself, none of us are able to pin down finally the most comprehensive manner in which to understand the relationship between the either/or world, the is/ought and the something/nothing connundrum as this is applicable to what we call “the human condition”.
Until then the scientists and the philosophers and the theists are all in the same boat.
Yup.
And, here, over and again, I say bring the arguments down to earth. What are we in fact able to demonstrate as true for all of us?
What are we in fact able to demonstrate as true to all of us and for all of us? Nothing. We can demonstrate away, but there will be hold outs on everything. Certainly about this assertion of mine.
I basically agree. Sans an understanding of existence itself, we can never really be absolutely certain of anything that we claim is true. We can only come closer to a context in which more rather than less agree that some things certainly appear to be truer than other things.
Though popularity may not mean anything. If we look to the past even consensus about somethings did not lead to it continuing to be consensus.
I can claim that it is true objectively that Don Trump is president of the United States. Unless, perhaps, between the time I make this claim and the time you react to it, Don Trump has died from a heart attack.
And I can claim that it is true that Don Trump is a great president. And I can claim that it is true that Don Trump thinks and feels and says and does things solely in sync with the immutable laws of matter in a determined universe. etc.
But how would these sorts of things be demonstrated such that rational mem and women are obligated to share the belief?
They certainly can’t be now and I doubt they ever will be. If one agrees with that, then the question becomes, potentially, what do I do given that I don’t think this will ever happen?
If one disagrees, what does one base this optimistic evaluation on.
But if one is trying to move things towards greater consensus, if that is your goal, what steps lead to that.
In this thread it seems like the point you make could be summed up as ‘look at all the stuff we don’t understand’.
Now that could be a good approach. Let’s face our situation and this situation includes us not knowing a lot of fundamental stuff.
Is this the best approach? I don’t know.
What other steps would be useful? Based on what knowledge does one decide?
What interpersonal skills are needed?
Who should one build consensus with first?
Or one might decide the goal is unreachable or that one is not the right person or that given all the problems some other activity might be more enjoyable or more important (to one).
Why is there something rather than nothing?
By Robert Adler
From the BBC Earth website
The universe is flat and why that’s important
Inflation [theory] also gave cosmologists the measuring tool they needed to determine the underlying geometry of the universe. It turns out this is also crucial for understanding how the cosmos came from nothing.
Think about the “underlying geometry” of anything at all in this somethingness we call the universe. However flat or not flat it is, it is always perceived from within the universe itself. Everything is always in relationship to something else. And then to everything else.
It is only when we grapple with describing the “underlying geometry” of nothing at all that the mind implodes. Just to contemplate it requires being a something that can.
And even if the universe itself is construed as flat how can this “flatness” not in turn be in or on or under or over or around or next to something?
Like everything in our somethingness world always is.
Einstein’s theory of general relativity tells us that the space-time we live in could take three different forms. It could be as flat as a table top. It could curve back on itself like the surface of a sphere, in which case if you travel far enough in the same direction you would end up back where you started. Alternatively, space-time could curve outward like a saddle. So which is it?
This sort of speculation is often discussed in documentaries on the Science Channel here in America. Or in a PBS/Nova doc.
I watch as they introduce all of these elaborate graphics in an attempt to illustrate the point. And all the while I’m thinking that only because something exist that allows them to do this are they actually able to do it at all.
They attempt to explain the existence of space-time as a sphere or a saddle. Or with a balloon being inflated.
But ever and always their attempt to explain something presupposes the existence of the something that they are already in.
I can’t even imagine how they would go about moving beyond theories bursting at the seams with all manner of equally theoretical assumptions to arrive at nothing at all.
And yet this point itself is almost never raised by them.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
By Robert Adler
From the BBC Earth website
You might remember from maths class that the three angles of a triangle add up to exactly 180 degrees. Actually your teachers left out a crucial point: this is only true on a flat surface. If you draw a triangle on the surface of a balloon, its three angles will add up to more than 180 degrees. Alternatively, if you draw a triangle on a surface that curves outward like a saddle, its angles will add up to less than 180 degrees.
And isn’t this “perspective” frame of mind all the more problematic when considering why something – this something – exists and not nothing at all?
At least with the three angles, we actually have things – triangles, balloons, saddles – that allow us to illustrate our point. But what of the variables on hand with respect to nothing at all? Suppose the universe/multiverse isn’t flat at all? Suppose those things that we don’t even know that we don’t even know about it yet make anything that we possibly can know [must know] about it way, way, way beyond what we can even imagine. Possibly even beyond what the human brain is even capable of imagining.
And even here assuming some measure of autonomy.
So to find out if the universe is flat, we need to measure the angles of a really big triangle. That’s where inflation comes in. It determined the average size of the warmer and cooler patches in the cosmic microwave background. Those patches were measured in 2003, and that gave astronomers a selection of triangles. As a result, we know that on the largest observable scale our universe is flat.
Only that just begs the question: What of the possible gap between what we think we know about inflation here and now and all that can possibly be known about it.
And [of course] all the while there is always something here to point to and to discuss and to figure out.
Nothing at all on the other hand…?
We can only ever understand that which is both observable and capable of comprehension
We must never assume that all knowledge can ever be known as that is simply not possible
We can only ever understand that which is both observable and capable of comprehension
We must never assume that all knowledge can ever be known as that is simply not possible
Think about what you are saying here.
On the one hand, you are asserting that “we must never assume that all knowledge can ever be known”. That this is “simply not possible.”
But then this particular claim of knowledge itself seems to be the exception.
In other words, this, in my view, is just another example of the objectivist frame of mind. It asserts things as “I” that “I” cannot possibly demonstrate as in fact true objectively for all of us.
And this [of course] goes back to the gap between the infinitesimal and tiny insignificance of “I” in the staggering vastness of “all there is”.
It’s more a psychological assessment in my view. A wanting to believe that what you think you know about this is true. That somehow your own particular “I” is able to be grounded in knowledge such as this.
Which is no less true of my own assumptions here. But in acknowledging this…how does that make me different from others?
Assuming in turn…
1] a No God world
2] some measure of human autonomy
The inevitability of our extinction means that no knowledge can ever be acquired after the event in question
Even if we could attain immortality it would take longer than infinity to know everything there was to know
The totality of all human knowledge is absolutely infinitesimal in comparison to everything that we do not know and never will know
In an infinite ocean all we have accumulated is one drop of water - in an infinite desert all we have accumulated is one grain of sand
The inevitability of our extinction means that no knowledge can ever be acquired after the event in question
Our extinction however is just another component of somethingness that we can speculate endlessly about but are not able to pin down definitively. You have to actually die first.
The totality of all human knowledge is absolutely infinitesimal in comparison to everything that we do not know and never will know
This is just more of the same though – an objectivist claim that you have absolutely no capacity to demonstrate is true.
It seems reasonable to me only because I am not able to imagine a frame of mind that might allow me to grasp everything there is to know.
That perspective is ascribed to God. And, no, here and now, I don’t believe in God. But that does not mean that God does not exist. And to the extent that He does, mere mortals [after they die] either will or will not be apprised of His mysterious ways.
In an infinite ocean all we have accumulated is one drop of water - in an infinite desert all we have accumulated is one grain of sand
As poetry, this may or may not make sense. But, as philosophy, it is no less just another an assertion without a shred of hard evidence to back it up.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
By Robert Adler
From the BBC Earth website
Everything that exists, from stars and galaxies to the light we see them by, must have sprung from somewhere. We already know that particles spring into existence at the quantum level, so we might expect the universe to contain a few odds and ends.
And yet in order to have a few odds and ends [or even lots and lots of them] the universe must first exist as something. So it would seem to be “existence” itself in need of a few odds and ends. And one particular beginning. And what could be odder than it beginning out of nothing at all?
How? Sure, maybe it revolves around this:
…it takes a huge amount of energy to make all those stars and planets. Where did the universe get all this energy? Bizarrely, it may not have had to get any. That’s because every object in the universe creates gravity, pulling other objects toward it. This balances the energy needed to create the matter in the first place.
But how on earth does one wrap their head around this? How would one go about trying to actually picture it happening?
I must be missing something. Okay, every object in the universe [including you and I] creates gravity. Every object is pulling on every other object. But this part…“this balances the energy needed to create the matter in the first place”…is lost on me.
How does gravity existing in objects that exist in this somethingness universe have any relationship with energy unless the objects creating the gravity already exist?
Though I will be the first to admit I don’t possess either brain power or the education to properly “think this through”.
But who does?
It’s a bit like an old-fashioned measuring scale. You can put a heavy weight on one side, so long as it is balanced by an equal weight on the other. In the case of the universe, the matter goes on one side of the scale, and has to be balanced by gravity.
Yeah, illustrate the text with explanations/examples like this. But this is already unfolding in the already existing somethingness. Where’s the “nothing” part come into play? How is that illustrated?
Beyond worlds of words in particular.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
By Robert Adler
From the BBC Earth website
Universe or multiverse?
At this point, making a universe looks almost easy. Quantum mechanics tells us that “nothing” is inherently unstable, so the initial leap from nothing to something may have been inevitable. Then the resulting tiny bubble of space-time could have burgeoned into a massive, busy universe, thanks to inflation. As Krauss puts it, “The laws of physics as we understand them make it eminently plausible that our universe arose from nothing - no space, no time, no particles, nothing that we now know of.”
Basically, what this amounts to in my view is an intellectual making a certain set of assumption about relationships he cannot possibly fully grasp; and then merely taking a conjectural leap to the conclusion that “the initial leap from nothing to something may have been inevitable.”
But isn’t this in itself inevitable until we are able to grasp a complete understanding of existence itself? If we are able to. For some though the leap in itself is fascinating enough.
Here I am and here it is: someone in something.
But how…why?
Leading to still more problematic speculation…
So why did it only happen once? If one space-time bubble popped into existence and inflated to form our universe, what kept other bubbles from doing the same?
Linde offers a simple but mind-bending answer. He thinks universes have always been springing into existence, and that this process will continue forever.
When a new universe stops inflating, says Linde, it is still surrounded by space that is continuing to inflate. That inflating space can spawn more universes, with yet more inflating space around them. So once inflation starts it should make an endless cascade of universes, which Linde calls eternal inflation. Our universe may be just one grain of sand on an endless beach.
Those universes might be profoundly different to ours.
Taking the conundrum of something out of nothing to multiple somethings out of multiple nothings in parallel universes that may well operate under an entirely different set of natural laws.
But what doesn’t change is the gap between “sheer speculation” like this the actual reality of what is in fact true. The part that we take to the grave with us.
Which then begets the gap between “sheer speculation” about the part beyond the grave and the actual reality of what is in fact true about that.
From THE DINNER TABLE website.
Why is There Something Instead of Nothing?
No, but seriously. Why is there something instead of nothing?
Last night, as I was creeping around the internet at 2:43am while the adults of the world slept, my eyes glanced by the headline, “Why is there something instead of nothing?” on the sidebar of a site I was on. I didn’t click the article.
I finally went to bed, planning to sleep eight hours, when at 7am I decide that actually, it was a better plan to wake up and stare at the ceiling for three hours thinking about why there was something. Instead of nothing.
I had heard the question before. It’s an old one that lots of people have pondered. But until 7am today, it hadn’t fully hit me how unbelievably boggling a question it was. It’s not a question—it’s the question—and the more you think about it, the less sense it makes.
I can’t actually recall the first time my own mind was boggled by this question. Nor can I put a precise count on the number of times it has boggled my mind since.
And the bottom line is that some no doubt go from the cradle to the grave without it ever once having truly boggled their mind. Either because they have already put all their cards in God or because they are overwhelmingly preoccupied with merely subsisting from day to day. And there are after all countless distractions to take the mind in other directions.
Besides, it’s not an answer that you need to have. It’s not even a pressing question unless you let it be.
But, for some, it ever gnaws at them. And it gnaws at them because they know [more or less deep down inside] that if there is ever to be “closure” regarding any possibly purpose and meaning in their lives, it will eventually get around to that.
From THE DINNER TABLE website.
First, my mind goes to “Wait—why is there anything at all?” Why is there space and time and matter and energy at all?
Then, I think about the alternative. What if there were just…nothing…at all…ever…anywhere? What if nothing ever was in the first place? But what? No. That can’t—there has to be something.
Nothing is truly a crazy concept. I’d keep thinking about a false nothing—like a vast empty vacuum (which is something) or nothing here, but other universes elsewhere in other dimensions (which is something), or nothing now, but at some point, way before or after now, there being something (which is something.
This either sinks in – really sinks in – or it doesn’t. Look around you. With everything else we can think through it once not existing and then existing. And we certainly exist to think it through it. And we grasp the existence of human biology that allowed us to come into existence in the first place.
But what of existence itself? Is that the one exception? Has that simply always been around? But how to pin that down with any actual clarity.
Trying to wrap my head around true, utter nothing, is what kept my eyes extra wide as I stared at the ceiling between 7am and 10am this morning.
In other words, if nothing at all is a “crazy concept”, imagine how bent out of shape any particular mind becomes trying to go beyond the concept of nothing, and actually capturing the reality of nothing itself.
In other words, if nothing at all is a “crazy concept”, imagine how bent out of shape any particular mind becomes trying to go beyond the concept of nothing, and actually capturing the reality of nothing itself.
Something is always doing the thinking while you try to imagine a nothing so it’s impossible to actually comprehend beyond what is. Consciousness cannot become non-existent because thoughts are always filling the voids whether they be ours or a wiser being who can harness all somethings to become more somethings.
Something is always doing the thinking while you try to imagine a nothing so it’s impossible to actually comprehend beyond what is.
That’s the point though. All we have at our disposal is the thinking “I”. And then the part where “I” go to the grave having lived an unimaginably obscure and insignificant existence in the context of “all there is”: Existence itself.
Of course, different folks will react to that differently. Just as they do to life and death itself. That’s all embodied in dasein.
Some fill in the blanks with God. Others with the belief that whatever is “behind” existence, their own particular life revolved around the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”.
At least they got that part right. The ever self-righteous objectivists.
Still, I can only acknowledge my own frame of mind here is but another example in and of itself of “sheer speculation”. There does not appear to be a “right way” to think about any of it.
Besides, who among us really knows what the hell happens to us after we die?
Consciousness cannot become non-existent because thoughts are always filling the voids whether they be ours or a wiser being who can harness all somethings to become more somethings.
Care to bring this down to earth?
Care to demonstrate how and why “all reasonable men and women are obligated to think like this too”?
What are you saying here about your own consciousness? In relationship to death? In relationship to existence itself?