Something Instead of Nothing

Note to others:

I give up.

If anyone would care to, please connect the dots between the points I raised to him and the points he raised with me.

As they relate to your own understanding of a possible relationship between nihilism and something rather than nothing.

As that analysis might be situated out in the world of actual human interactions.

That’s basically my own world view in regard to 1] “I” wielding value judgments amidst conflicting goods in the is/ought world and 2] grappling with “metaphysical” questions as big as this one.

There is what you believe and there is what you are able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

But: regarding such questions as “something instead nothing” or “something out of nothing” in particular, no one is really able to demonstrate much beyond the gap between what “I” think I know here and now and all that can be known/must be known about the existence of existence itself.

Unless of course there is another more sensible way of thinking about it that I am not yet privy to.

For some reason, I keep coming back to the idea that meno is just being ironic. On the philosophy board, he is merely exposing the “intellectual contraptions” of particular “serious philosophers” a la the “the Sokal affair”: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Or maybe there is an aspect of his personality that needs to be seen as an “intellectual”. As what he construes a “serious philosopher” should sound like.

Or is he just another run-of-the-mill pedant?

But that’s all purely conjectural on my part. And, no doubt, others [like KT] have a similar assessment to “capture” what they think makes me tick here.

“The Fundamental Question”
Arthur Witherall

This in and of itself is intriguing given the somethingness that we appear to live in now. There are “real thing worlds” that we all just take for granted. The life that we do live on planet earth in a solar system revolving around our own star.

But we exist as a result of the evolution of life on earth culminating [so far] in minds able to imagine worlds that we think up in our head. But: In imagining the world in ways other than as it is, we can set about reconfiguring that real world into the one more in sync with the one we imagine. The real world and the worlds that we imagine then become intertwined over the course of time into ever evolving and changing historical and cultural communities.

For example, as the means of production were evolving in the Middle Ages, mercantilism in sync with a burgeoning world trade prompted folks to imagine very different human interactions. They then set about to reconfigure the Dark Ages into the Renaissance. Then capitalism [through the industrial revolution] prompted others to imagine a socialist alternative.

That’s how it works in this particular somethingness. A snapshot of the real world today is always intertwined with minds that are imagining the world in a different way.

And given that this is what preoccupies most of us, the part about nothingness is always able to be dumped onto one or another back burner.

No one is obligated to believe anything at all regardless of how rational it might actually be
What individual minds think is entirely up to them including that which is not at all rational

Not all minds think the same and here are a couple of totally different ways some do :

Reality is not actually real but only appears real because minds perceive it as real
But minds themselves are not real and all knowledge is but an illusion within the reality that is also an illusion

To be truly open one must think like a baby because babies have the purest minds of all for theirs are as free as they will ever be
This means that one must simply be open at all times to all possibilities and make absolutely no assumptions about anything at all

From my perspective the first can easily be accepted as a concept while the second although desirable is probably impossible to achieve
Neither of these are my own but I understand very clearly why those those who have accepted them for themselves think the way they do

What you think of them is entirely up to you as all I am doing is simply informing you of their existence as just other ways of seeing reality

It depends on the context. If you wish to accomplish some task and what you think is true is completely out of sync with what is in fact true, chances are you won’t succeed.

And this is true, for, say, plumbers and auto mechanics and brain surgeons. They may not be obligated to know their craft in accordance with what is true for all plumbers and auto mechanics and brain surgeons…but how far along will they go in their careers?

In the either/or world, sure, one may or may not be obligated to grasp and to act on what is in fact true. But, again, it always comes down to the context.

My point is that in regard to the is/ought world and to really big questions like “something instead of nothing”, no one seems able to establish that which rational human beings are obligated to believe.

On the contrary, for most of us what we come to think is never entirely up to us. Instead, we are indoctrinated as children to view the world around us as the authority figures in our lives view it.

Then as we get older and [in the modern world] come into contact with others who have differing points of view, we have a greater capacity to think things through and decide for ourselves. Well, presuming of course we don’t live in a wholly determined universe.

But, with regard to value judgments and to the really big questions, “I” here is still seem by me to be largely an existential contraption.

Okay, but how does that really address my point above?

From my own perspective, it’s not that different minds think different things about something instead of nothing. Rather it is that there appears to be an yawning gap between what any particular mind has come to think about it [in an autonomous universe] and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to assess how accurate this thinking is.

And here I am again pointing out that my first reaction revolves around what I construe to be a “first person omniscient” point of view. You inflect this sense of certainty about what you think is true about things you have no real capacity to demonstrate that others ought to think is true too. Beyond merely agreeing with your argument itself.

You merely start with a set of assumptions about the relationship between “reality” and “minds” and “illusory knowledge”.

Again, if we live in a wholly determined universe, the minds of all living things reflect merely the illusion of being free. And the very point that you make about making no assumptions is an assumption in and of itself.

Way too abstract for me.

Let’s focus in on a context in which you and I might interact. How might this “general description” assessment be applicable? And then imagine the most promising way in which to connect the dots between this particular understanding of reality in this particular context as that might be understood given all that we have absolutely no clue regarding going back to the existence of an infinite somethingness or a something that was derived from nothing at all.

I can only speak about myself here so I use the knowledge base I have to formulate a world view about the nature of reality and where human beings fit into this
I have some opinions on it but they are simply mental reference points for me and not intended for the purpose of converting anyone to my way of thinking at all
I do not make claims that cannot be justified and accept that the standard for knowledge is way higher than it is for opinion

This is what I either think is true or know is true [ in no particular order ]

Science is the best way to study observable phenomena and no other discipline has the brutality of the scientific method to compare
A method so brutal that where possible it tests anything to absolute destruction as that is the only way to investigate that what exists

Everyone who is an adult and compis mentis is ultimately responsible for all they think /say / do where they had the free will to do so

The Golden and Silver Rules are an excellent foundation for both individual and collective morality
The Golden is found in all major belief systems and can be adopted by those with no belief system

No one has a monopoly on wisdom and humility is a much better educator than arrogance will ever be
The older I become the less I think I know and while that may not be entirely true I do know very little

Pragmatism is the only true philosophy because by default it is the only one that works all of the time
And everyone is to a greater or lesser degree a pragmatist even if they are not actually aware of this

Falsification is to all intents and purposes the single nearest thing to true and absolute knowledge
So it should therefore be the foundation upon which all related subsequent truth claims are tested

Nothing matters in the grand scheme of things but while we are here we just do the best that we can
Religion was invented by human beings to overcome fear of death but any such fear is truly irrational

“Pragmatism is the only true philosophy because by default it is the only one that works all of the time”

Lol!

Okay, but this is still just another “general description”.

Now, clearly, when it comes to any discussion or debate revolving around something instead of nothing, no one seems able to get any more specific other than by acknowledging right from the start that what they think they know about it is certainly a long, long, long way from all that can be known.

It basically becomes an exchange of wild ass conjectures. More or less thought through. But never able to be thought through enough. Then some people become fascinated by it, while others could not care less. The part I attribute to dasein.

But brutality here only goes so far. No scientist seems able to explain something rather than nothing such that this explanation is viewed by others as brutal. What can that possibly even mean?

But that doesn’t make the gap between what they think/say/do and a definitive explanation for why they thought/said/did it go away. There is something instead of nothing here and now. Only we have no comprehensive methodology [scientific, philosophical or otherwise] for explaining that — depending on how far out on the metapysical limb one is prepared to go.

And, of course, depending on whether even those excursions are only what they ever could have been given a wholly determined universe.

Yes, but even that can be construed as more or less problematic: philosophynow.org/issues/74/The … en_Anymore

As with most things, it depends on the actual context…understood from a particular point of view.

Tell that to the moral and the political and the metaphysical objectivists.

Okay, but then it comes down to the extent to which, as a pragmatist, one is either more or less down in the hole that I am in dealing with “I” as either more or less fractured and fragmented. All presuming some measure of autonomy and completely leaving aside the question of something rather than nothing at all.

And it works only until your own rendition of behaving pragmatically collides head long into another’s very, very different rendition. The part where, for me, the hole comes into play.

Unless of course your own understanding of the grand scheme of things here and now is no where near what it actually is.

All true although for me it is not really wild ass but a model of reality I use as a reference point for trying to make sense of what I think I know
You cannot be too specific when you have very little knowledge to go on but the model that you do have should still be as accurate as possible

And yes some are fascinated by it while others are not - that is just human nature - it would be very unusual if we all thought the same all of the time
As we are individuals with our own subjective likes and dislikes which is a consequence of free will - so we can decide what to like and what not to like

Here, in my view, it all depends on how far back you want to go when acknowledging the gap between what you think you know here and now and all that can be known about existence itself.

In that context, even the most sophisticated minds would seem burdened with all of the “unknown unknowns” that stand between “I” and “all there is”. Sure, call them something other than wild-ass conjectures. But that doesn’t make the gap go away.

Unless of course there’s a gap between what I think here and what those truly sophisticated minds think that makes what they think not basically “scratching the surface of reality” conjectures.

Here though I keep coming back to [or going back to] the realization that “I” will soon enough be dead, utterly oblivious to anything that might not be just a wild-ass guess on my part here and now.

That’s about the size of it. But, again, in my view, our reactions to that are no less existential contraptions. Some think one way, some another. But there appears to be no way in which to determine the direction that the most rational minds ought to go in.

And this is in regard to that which it would appear to be either one way or another. No moral quandaries here.

I am not at all burdened by all of the unknown unknowns or even the known unknowns but just accept that I cannot know them
My death will also make me oblivious to any knowledge that comes after but this is something I equally accept without question

First, of course, just because here and now you don’t feel burdened by them doesn’t mean that, given your own infinitesimally tiny speck of somethingness floating about in the staggering vastness of the all there is somethingness [like mine], a new experience won’t trigger them. Tomorrow never knows as the song says. Well, assuming some measure of autonomy.

And, let’s face it, feeling burdened or not feeling burdened can easily be shoved way, way, way back in your mind as you go about the business of actually living your life.

I always note here how each of us as individuals is going to be more or less predisposed to go there given the entirely unique trajectory of experiences that “I” accumulates from the cradle to the grave.

Without question? As though there is this “real you” – a core you? – that comes to these conclusions and that’s that?

Well, let’s just say that we think about the existential emodiment of “I” here very differently.

“The Fundamental Question”
Arthur Witherall

For the life of me, I am unable to grasp how anyone can come to conclusions such as this without recognizing that they are, in the end, created entirely out of the assumptions embedded in the arguments themselves.

Some are clearly fascinated by speculations of this sort. And, sure, why not…take a stab at it. But to be a mere mortal on this tiny little planet in this tiny little solar system in this tiny little galaxy in what may well be this tiny little universe and speak of “necessary truths”?!

I can only see this as the ultimate attempt to [psychologically] embed or entangle [b]I[/b] in the ultimate somethingness. To be a part of nothing at all just doesn’t cut it.

The fact that this discussion revolves around feeling or not feeling awe in the face of whatever somethingness is speaks volumes in and of itself to me. It always comes back to us. To fitting the human species into this somethingness as more than just a speck of existence. That awe is something that we can feel about our own somethingness matters. As though something – everything there is – coming into existence out of nothing at all couldn’t induce an even more staggering awe.

“The Fundamental Question”
Arthur Witherall

From my frame of mind, it doesn’t matter how “detailed” a “formal argument” is regarding the somethingness/nothingness conundrum. It still remains a conundrum. A “conception of worlds” is always going to be far, far, far short of, say, the collection of evidence that astrophysicists have accumulated to date regarding the somethingness that we call the Big Bang. There may or may not have been nothing at all before it, but where it became a “something” involves an enormous amount of substantiation.

How would one go about setting up a subtraction of objects experiment that either takes us back to nothing at all or not?

For me though it’s not speculations of this sort themselves that irk me; rather, it is those that are defended by some as though they are not ultimately just sheer conjecture at all.

In other words, in his head.

And this settles what exactly? Or, okay, sure, perhaps my reaction here reflects that fact that, in many important respects, I haven’t a clear understanding at all of what he is trying to suggest. But a clear understanding, including ways to actually demonstrate it empirically/phenomenologically, are either available to us or they are not.

Until then it’s just another thought experiment to me.

“The Fundamental Question”
Arthur Witherall

From my frame of mind, this is clearly the option that is, if nothing else, the most self-fulfilling, the most optimistic, the most comforting and consoling. After all, not only do you have a “simple” explanation, but God is something you can point in the general direction of in order to sustain this somethingness in the general direction of all eternity. And in Paradise no less!

So, don’t count on that explanation ever really going away. And even many of those who don’t believe it probably want it to be true.

This sort of thinking has always seemed both specious and spurious to me. After all, it is only another “argument”, the truth of which depends entirely on how you define the meaning of words that you cannot take out of the argument itself and attach to any actual “thing”. Same with the so-called “complexities”. Things here become complex in a world of words only to the extent that up in the clouds of abstraction you make them complex. Intellectually.

For example:

Got that? God and the “straightforward deduction”. Right. From my perspective that is no less delusional than “somethingness and the straightforward deduction” or “nothingness and the straightforward deduction”. And switching over to induction doesn’t bring us any closer to an actual demonstrable argument.

So I’m sticking with the assumption that while it is ever fascinating to speculate about questions this mind-bending, only a fool would actually imagine [let alone profess] that, given all the “unknown unknowns” still out there [and, for some, oblivion], their own conclusions really are the right ones.

“The Fundamental Question”
Arthur Witherall

Besides, from positivism all the way up to scientism itself, there is just no getting around questions so mind-boggling that “metaphysical” is as good a word as any to describe them. Science can get closer and closer and closer to explaining how “existence” works, but how far is that still from why it works how it works? Let alone why existence is even around to work at all.

Avoiding my point altogether. Making a “claim” in regard to how one should react to “the fundamental question” is no closer to an answer – to the answer – whether you are deemed the world’s greatest philosopher, the world’s greatest scientist or the world’s greatest thinker period.

My frame of mind is that reactions to this [as with almost everything else this far out on the limb] are embedded far more in “I” as encompassed here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

It’s just that with science there is often considerably more “hard evidence” to back up any particular claim.

Now, when I confront the “fundamental question” my mind is quickly boggled. Is that awe? Is that what you should feel too?

“The Fundamental Question”
Arthur Witherall

Indeed.

After all, this can only be based on the assumption that the human brain has the capacity to grasp whatever the answer might possibly be. But that is just another component of the dilemma itself. Somethingness has evolved into matter able to ask the fundamental question. That in and of itself seems mind-boggling in a No God world.

But we have no idea how much closer we are to the answer, given, among other things, this:

“It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.”

So, for folks like me, we don’t know what to be more staggered by:

1] the something that does exist
2] how and why that something came to exist at all

Presupposing. There does not appear to be away around it. Presupposing that we understand what “a state of true nothingness” is we can then presuppose that it “would not submit to the laws of quantum mechanics”.

Presupposing that anyone is ever able to come up with a way test this experimentally. Given that the experiment itself can only be conducted in the somethingness that already does exist. How would one get around that? Other then theoretically in world of words intellectual contraption.

Still, sure, bravo for those who are at least groping to understand these things. What could possibly be more crucial than in understanding everything there is to know about the something that “I” am a part of.

It just may not actually ever be possible.

In our own lifetime, for example.

“The Fundamental Question”
Arthur Witherall

Teleology may well be the trickiest factor of all here. After all, it’s one thing to argue that somethingness came into existence out of nothing at all. Or was always around. It’s another thing altogether to link the ontological truth here with might be construed as an existence having a meaning or a purpose behind it.

And how would one grapple with this other than through God and religion?

Most of us conclude that it is good to be alive because we are convinced that life does have a meaning and a purpose linked precisely to God.

And, again, for most of us this revolves around a place of worship every Friday or Saturday or Sunday. Or, even if we reject God and religion, it becomes vital to link our own somethingness to that which transcends just little ole me. And this can range from being at one with nature, or being spiritually enlightened, or being politically correct to attaching “I” to one or another pantheistic regimen. Encompassing literally the entire universe.

Anything to avoid concluding existence itself is just the brute facticity that some describe it as.