Something Instead of Nothing

[iambiguous]

Some more speculation: https://youtu.be/wI0T9-1CbeQ

This take on the question "why something instead of nothing?" starts out by noting the age old distinction made between the God and the No God folks. The God folks explain the existence of something "logically" through God. It's the only reasonable explanation that there is.

But then the No God folks point out that if something and not nothing includes God this immediately begs the question, "who or what created God?"

Here he notes that the God folks then abandon "logic" for "magic". God, they tell us, is the one exception. He does not need a creator or a creation. He just is.

Next, he offers a quote from JBS Halding: "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

And, in this universe, and on this planet, matter has evolved into minds able to conjure up any number of really tough "metaphysical questions". Philosophical and scientific quandaries such that the tools at our disposal [logic, rational thought, empirical observation etc.] only take us so far in attempts to provide answers.

Eventually we are just stuck with accepting the "queer" parts that seem beyond our grasp.

And "something and not nothing" clearly falls within the parameters of that. Our rational thinking tells us that everything in the universe had a beginning. And then some insist that this beginning can be explained [will be explained] once we completely understand that beginning -- the Big Bang.

And that this will somehow include the part before it. Or explain why there was no part before it.

And, however queer that might seem, isn't the idea that existence has always been around queerer still? So, we have to take that "leap" to the explanation that seems the least queer to us "here and now".

Knowing that we can never really be certain of what new information and knowledge and ideas might come along to change our minds.

Or if even that is within capacity to embody autonomously.

[Meno_]

Or described in another basic form:

The relation between causa sui and sui generis.

Or extended to Sartre, the relationship between for itself and in itself


: Being-in-itself is concrete, lacks the ability to change, and is unaware of itself. Being-for-itself is conscious of its own consciousness but is also incomplete. For Sartre, this undefined, nondetermined nature is what defines man.

From ' Being and Nothingness' , Sartre

Same here.

Choose a particular context in which actual flesh and blood human beings interact and bring Sartre's assumptions down into it.

What "for all practical purposes" do you suppose that he is telling us here about the pour-soi and the en-soi?

And, in a wholly determined universe, could a distinction such as this even be made? Or, if made, made only because one could never not make it?

As the different nexus appear as insoluable in some instances, and at that level, an existential jump based on extremely small differences, becomes a power issue which is almost an unconscious endeavor this sub consciousness becomes like an auto pilot.

[iambiguous]

As the different nexus appear as insoluable in some instances, and at that level, an existential jump based on extremely small differences, becomes a power issue which is almost an unconscious endeavor this sub consciousness becomes like an auto pilot.

I mean, basically, this why I almost never respond to the points that you raise. For all I know, sure, this may well be a brilliant observation. But what on earth does it have to do with "choosing a particular context in which actual flesh and blood human beings interact...and then bringing Sartre's assumptions down into it."

As that relates to why there is something instead of nothing in a world where we may or may not possess autonomous minds.

What "existential jump" based on what "extremely small differences" relating to what actual context in which human beings choose different [and sometimes conflicting] behaviors?

And in a wholly determined universe it would seem that even Nietzsche's "will to power" -- embodied either consciously, subconsciously or unconsciously -- might be described as on "auto-pilot" given that it can only ever be in sync with the immutable laws of matter.

[Meno_]

I actually tried to relate to Jacob"s comment how it legitimizes his ontological-value description in terms of Being and Nothingness.

I was not particularising within the context you bring it down to earth,because that is impossible, given that description, with which I sense agreement.

Partixularising is the contextual background, where a reductive effect takes place, I.e, from IO valuation, to basic general evaluation based on the very basic ontological necessity, that exists between particularization/differentiation and identification/integration of variables.

(Since values are variable as they are conflicting

The levels of convertibilitu of values are mostly automatic and deterministic at that level, hence the unconsciousness of any effort for an existential leap.

If I had to spell out every variable in this progression, it way undermine the fact that I am basically with you here.


But again, since You are currently taking a positivist -linguistic bases , while extolling the contrary, does not change communication to a degree that would guaranty a mutual communication. However I still keep tryiing grather then point to a one way flow of information exchange, as brilliant or, otherwise it may appear/ to .be.

As far as the will to power is concerned, he is taking a position an-infinity, away from absurdity, where repetition on an approach hung absolute(Kierkegaard) will start to approximate an exit , but on cosmogical and not particular ground. What that particular or particle is is a matter of philosophical bias, not in a something or nothongr bounded bounded universe but in a something and nothing universe.

[iambiguous]

I actually tried to relate to Jacob"s comment how it legitimizes his ontological-value description in terms of Being and Nothingness.

Okay, that's fair enough. But in my view Jacob is particularly adept at coming in here and making these ponderous observations that appear to be intellectually weighty, but only [in my view] up in the clouds of abstraction.

I still have no idea how VO might relate to the manner in which I construe the values that individuals acquire over the course of actually living their lives. Let alone how that relates to something instead of nothing or the debate that swirls around dualism and human autonomy.

And now this from him: "All that is definitive is the ring of power."

Right.

I was not particularising within the context you bring it down to earth,because that is impossible, given that description, with which I sense agreement.

But what do you mean by impossible here? There are clearly things that are in fact possible in regard to human interactions. Things that we can agree are true for all of us.

And while we do not appear capable of linking our own narratives to an understanding of existence itself, that never stops folks interested in philosophy from giving it their best shot. And do we ever really know which members here might be thinking about all this in a way that never really occured to us? Besides, if it stops being of interest to someone, they can always just cease and desist from coming here.

Partixularising is the contextual background, where a reductive effect takes place, I.e, from IO valuation, to basic general evaluation based on the very basic ontological necessity, that exists between particularization/differentiation and identification/integration of variables.

(Since values are variable as they are conflicting

The levels of convertibilitu of values are mostly automatic and deterministic at that level, hence the unconsciousness of any effort for an existential leap.

If I had to spell out every variable in this progression, it way undermine the fact that I am basically with you here.

Again, this might be an extraordinary insight. But I have absolutely no idea what "on earth" it means. Though, sure, if that part is of little or no interest to you, you can always find others here who are willing to trade "technically sophisticated" "general description" "scholastic assessments" with you.

But it always just seems to be so much mental masturbation to me. A ceaseless attempt to coincide conflicting renditions of "definitional logic" so that everyone is at least absolutely certain that they agree on what the words mean.

Will Durant's "epistemologists" in other words.

But again, since You are currently taking a positivist -linguistic bases , while extolling the contrary, does not change communication to a degree that would guaranty a mutual communication. However I still keep tryiing grather then point to a one way flow of information exchange, as brilliant or, otherwise it may appear/ to .be.

What I am is someone who is interested in taking observations like this out into the world of actual social, political and economic interactions. And then in exploring how "for all practical purposes" they are relevant to the lives that we live.

What on earth do you suppose the evolution of human speech and language is really all about? In other words, what is it that speech and language is intended to communicate?

First of course words that facilitate our actual subsistence itself. We can't be philosophers unless and until we are able feed ourselves, shelter ourselves, defend ourselves, reproduce ourselves.

And then words that sustain all the things that we are able to want.

Only after all that can the very few focus on those words that revolve around what we call "the big questions" in philosophy.

The stuff that is the aim of this thread.

So, what I do is attempt to connect the dots between what we think we know about the nature of human speech and language, about the "big questions", and how that might be relevant to the behaviors that we choose in the course of living our lives.

As that relates to the question, "how ought one to live"?

[Meno_]

I actually tried to relate to Jacob"s comment how it legitimizes his ontological-value description in terms of Being and Nothingness.

Okay, that's fair enough. But in my view Jacob is particularly adept at coming in here and making these ponderous observations that appear to be intellectually weighty, but only [in my view] up in the clouds of abstraction.

I still have no idea how VO might relate to the manner in which I construe the values that individuals acquire over the course of actually living their lives. Let alone how that relates to something instead of nothing or the debate that swirls around dualism and human autonomy.

And now this from him: "All that is definitive is the ring of power."

Right.

I was not particularising within the context you bring it down to earth,because that is impossible, given that description, with which I sense agreement.

But what do you mean by impossible here? There are clearly things that are in fact possible in regard to human interactions. Things that we can agree are true for all of us.

And while we do not appear capable of linking our own narratives to an understanding of existence itself, that never stops folks interested in philosophy from giving it their best shot. And do we ever really know which members here might be thinking about all this in a way that never really occured to us? Besides, if it stops being of interest to someone, they can always just cease and desist from coming here.

Partixularising is the contextual background, where a reductive effect takes place, I.e, from IO valuation, to basic general evaluation based on the very basic ontological necessity, that exists between particularization/differentiation and identification/integration of variables.

(Since values are variable as they are conflicting

The levels of convertibilitu of values are mostly automatic and deterministic at that level, hence the unconsciousness of any effort for an existential leap.

If I had to spell out every variable in this progression, it way undermine the fact that I am basically with you here.

Again, this might be an extraordinary insight. But I have absolutely no idea what "on earth" it means. Though, sure, if that part is of little or no interest to you, you can always find others here who are willing to trade "technically sophisticated" "general description" "scholastic assessments" with you.

But it always just seems to be so much mental masturbation to me. A ceaseless attempt to coincide conflicting renditions of "definitional logic" so that everyone is at least absolutely certain that they agree on what the words mean.

Will Durant's "epistemologists" in other words.

But again, since You are currently taking a positivist -linguistic bases , while extolling the contrary, does not change communication to a degree that would guaranty a mutual communication. However I still keep tryiing grather then point to a one way flow of information exchange, as brilliant or, otherwise it may appear/ to .be.

What I am is someone who is interested in taking observations like this out into the world of actual social, political and economic interactions. And then in exploring how "for all practical purposes" they are relevant to the lives that we live.

What on earth do you suppose the evolution of human speech and language is really all about? In other words, what is it that speech and language is intended to communicate?

First of course words that facilitate our actual subsistence itself. We can't be philosophers unless and until we are able feed ourselves, shelter ourselves, defend ourselves, reproduce ourselves.

And then words that sustain all the things that we are able to want.

Only after all that can the very few focus on those words that revolve around what we call "the big questions" in philosophy.

The stuff that is the aim of this thread.

So, what I do is attempt to connect the dots between what we think we know about the nature of human speech and language, about the "big questions", and how that might be relevant to the behaviors that we choose in the course of living our lives.

As that relates to the question, "how ought one to live"?

Imbigious, most matters of this kind can be solved by reduction, instead of inducing them by a positive demonstration. Positive philosophy is more linked to material demonstration s, of the here and now. This You MUST agree because they are the linkage of the beginning and the very end of your summation.

The basic questions or rather, sub questions can flow out of this basic reduction from most complex: vis. 'induced', toward the most 'reduced'.

The point at which they become cognitively upheld on any basis , which is the epoche, or presentation/re-presentation of a tie-in between the materialist and the immaterialiat position, where those two terms are logically tied to ea h other, as Kantianism tried to do.

This too, is or should be self exemplary.

The exemplary-ness of such, was indeed upheld by Sartre, by his invocation in Being AND Nothingness, to which You yourself subscribed to.(see above)

That quote underlines obviously what is at stake, and that is where we can get into trouble. And did! Now before going further, hoping that so far everything seems in order upon agreeing upon them, I will take a pause before getting into theater of Your particular objections. Which are noted in between Jacob's description s and your parting shot at the end about a though about how one ought to live.

[Meno_]

I actually tried to relate to Jacob"s comment how it legitimizes his ontological-value description in terms of Being and Nothingness.

"no idea how VO might relate to the manner in which I construe the values that individuals acquire over the course of actually living their lives. Let alone how that relates to something instead of nothing or the debate that swirls around dualism and human autonomy."


The problem with VO , as you define conflicting values, of as Sartre explained it minimally above, is, that the 'for itself' is conscious of Its own values, but always incomplete. For, particular applications always revolve around the in-situ problem., whereas I'm it'self is not conscious of his own level of his absolute conviction.

This is where the cusp of the argument falls down.Why? The real reason is based on the definition of what DOUBT , the concept, revolves around. Particularization , sure, will be easily shown to be the basis of the failure in exemplifying the moral problem of abortion.

However, this doubt, or variable probability for setting a credible ethical standard is insufficient in that effort, and prone to a reduction into an absurdity. (Epoche stops this unreasonably dubious descent, invoking Kant's famous categorical imperative. Now arguments cone in called 'Naturalustic Fallacy' to logically declare the artificiality, of the conceptual fragmentation of further logical reduction into holding to the notion of 'absolute Doubt' ( The same pivotal Doupt' that Descartes finally cracked. It cracked , because he invoked the idea of a demonic concept, the Evil Genious to overcome God's benefiscience. Descartes was a Catholic within. The folds of the Church, hence his Evil Genius is a Temptor, who has to be literally understood at face value. This is the problem before Nietzhe cracked or, by the power of The Ring, an eta when, before redemption, pre-logical essences played with the rules of existence.

Not to invoke or induce these archytipical Beings into the argument is a mistake, since they are mostly part and parcel of the archytipical down to earth ideas about the mind, about its functions and how they relate to how we presently act morally, sometimes in defiance to the gods, because everyone assumes they ' died'

But did they?

Before going on into Eyer, whose argument reduces behavior into an absurd argumentative relations in relation of how we may think about them, lets take another pause, before trying to inquire of how we, as everyday practical men do, or should apply the more inclusive adaptations of modern doubt, into the necessity of its consciously developed mutation.
We can not , for if we go further than the materialhete and now connotation of the doubt enveloping us, we immediately negate that thought by short cutting it, in defense of our own rational material psyche.

I don't even know how suçcesful this demonstration was, but certainly, if I was a young girl living in Saudi Arabia, where denial of parent's attitudes could result result in my death, I would certainly think twice before becoming pregnant, and if I did, I would certainly see it fit to do anything to abort a child.

[Meno_]

Now I am hoping that leaving the rest of the argument would reduce it to a misunderstandible standard, so it is up to You to connect the dots between the conscious conscious and the sub/unconscious unconscious variables.

You can't argue for the rightness or wrongness or the workings of the above exampled Saudi young girl on her level of understanding, because the connections have not been. Completely installed between what right and wrong entail, suppose You were her parent, counselor, or undertaker would think.

You actually would need to crack the code which would have actual bearing on an absolute sense of how all these people's sense is coming from. Is it sub conscious or conscious source which predicted their mode of thought, or is a totally predetermined mind excluding all possibilities will react without thinking of any other possibilities and their consequences?

This is story is based on an actual murder case by the parents of a Saudi girl living in New York City.

[Meno_]

Finally , the -'Nothing' that you are reluctant to agree with as the basis of solving problems involving values, is not nothing , as you are attempting to define, but a some-thing, as minimally uses as per existence. There really is no 'absolute nothingness' after all in any sense of the word, no matter how hard you are trying that absolute sense of Being per material.


The contradictory attempt at proof is very obvious.

[iambiguous]

Imbigious, most matters of this kind can be solved by reduction, instead of inducing them by a positive demonstration. Positive philosophy is more linked to material demonstration s, of the here and now. This You MUST agree because they are the linkage of the beginning and the very end of your summation.

The basic questions or rather, sub questions can flow out of this basic reduction from most complex: vis. 'induced', toward the most 'reduced'.

The point at which they become cognitively upheld on any basis , which is the epoche, or presentation/re-presentation of a tie-in between the materialist and the immaterialiat position, where those two terms are logically tied to ea h other, as Kantianism tried to do.

This too, is or should be self exemplary.

The exemplary-ness of such, was indeed upheld by Sartre, by his invocation in Being AND Nothingness, to which You yourself subscribed to.(see above)

That quote underlines obviously what is at stake, and that is where we can get into trouble. And did! Now before going further, hoping that so far everything seems in order upon agreeing upon them, I will take a pause before getting into theater of Your particular objections. Which are noted in between Jacob's description s and your parting shot at the end about a though about how one ought to live.

Again, the only thing that interrest me regarding intellectual contraptions of this sort is their relevance to the lives that we actually live.

So, why don't we just conclude that I refuse to be a "serious philosopher" and leave it at that.

[Meno_]

Imbigious, most matters of this kind can be solved by reduction, instead of inducing them by a positive demonstration. Positive philosophy is more linked to material demonstration s, of the here and now. This You MUST agree because they are the linkage of the beginning and the very end of your summation.

The basic questions or rather, sub questions can flow out of this basic reduction from most complex: vis. 'induced', toward the most 'reduced'.

The point at which they become cognitively upheld on any basis , which is the epoche, or presentation/re-presentation of a tie-in between the materialist and the immaterialiat position, where those two terms are logically tied to ea h other, as Kantianism tried to do.

This too, is or should be self exemplary.

The exemplary-ness of such, was indeed upheld by Sartre, by his invocation in Being AND Nothingness, to which You yourself subscribed to.(see above)

That quote underlines obviously what is at stake, and that is where we can get into trouble. And did! Now before going further, hoping that so far everything seems in order upon agreeing upon them, I will take a pause before getting into theater of Your particular objections. Which are noted in between Jacob's description s and your parting shot at the end about a though about how one ought to live.

Again, the only thing that interrest me regarding intellectual contraptions of this sort is their relevance to the lives that we actually live.

So, why don't we just conclude that I refuse to be a "serious philosopher" and leave it at that.

There is no real difference between a serious philosopher and one who isn't, as long as one is thinking about what thoughts occur between what one sees and hears, as a qualifier for belonging to that art of philosophy.

That you see no point beyond appreciating that process of thought that You consider as practical philosophy, does not disconnect You from the implications of its seriousness, while at the same time does not induce others reading You within considering those implications.

It does make for more sense to become more practically minded, as in our case, having come to practically identical positions.

But at times it makes sense for the sake of more connections, not to completely exclude all else.

Otherwise, there appears no issue, except the archaic contrariness, of left behind truncations but even then, the conflicting ideas can at least be written down as problematic to the degree of becoming paradoxical.


To not to pre-empty Your question , following this one, An incident very much like this one occurred in NY City, around 10 years ago, when the parents did murder their daughter, ( both from Saudi Arabia,) they were arrested and used their cultural heritage as defense, which the Judge rejected on grounds of their legal obligations to their adopted country, and were duly executed)

[iambiguous]

I have no idea how VO might relate to the manner in which I construe the values that individuals acquire over the course of actually living their lives. Let alone how that relates to something instead of nothing or the debate that swirls around dualism and human autonomy.

I don't even know how suçcesful this demonstration was, but certainly, if I was a young girl living in Saudi Arabia, where denial of parent's attitudes could result result in my death, I would certainly think twice before becoming pregnant, and if I did, I would certainly see it fit to do anything to abort a child.

In other words, given that, historically and culturally, this girl was adventitiously "thrown" at birth into a nation that prescribes and proscribes particular behaviors relating to, among other things, gender and sexuality and religious values and abortion, her own values are shaped and molded as a child to be in sync with them.

And this is in sync with my own speculation that individual values are derived existentially from the actual lives that we live. The manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

So, how would VO, with its "ring of power" respond to that? How do you respond to it?

Taking this...

What on earth do you suppose the evolution of human speech and language is really all about? In other words, what is it that speech and language is intended to communicate?

First of course words that facilitate our actual subsistence itself. We can't be philosophers unless and until we are able feed ourselves, shelter ourselves, defend ourselves, reproduce ourselves.

And then words that sustain all the things that we are able to want.

Only after all that can the very few focus on those words that revolve around what we call "the big questions" in philosophy.

...into account.

But...

Suppose the child's parents were somehow able to leave Saudi Arabia and raise their daughter in, say, America? They left because they rejected embracing the religious values the state demanded of its citizens. Instead, they raised their daughter to believe that abortion was the right of all women to choose.

In other words, conflicting goods. In Saudi Arabia abortion is bad, immoral, a sin against God. In America, some believe that as well. But others do not. So, as an advocate of VO, how would Jacob go about describing these conflicting values; and, using the ring of power, how might he differentiate justified and unjustified behaviors?

How about you?

[iambiguous]

Finally , the -'Nothing' that you are reluctant to agree with as the basis of solving problems involving values, is not nothing , as you are attempting to define, but a some-thing, as minimally uses as per existence. There really is no 'absolute nothingness' after all in any sense of the word, no matter how hard you are trying that absolute sense of Being per material.


The contradictory attempt at proof is very obvious.

Note to Jacob:

So, does this make sense to you? Is there an "absolute nothingness" equivalent in VO?

And, just out of curiosity, what do you imagine will become of you -- your own particular "I" -- after you die? Does the ring of power tumble over into the abyss with it?

Is there anything in the way of a posthumous VO?

[iambiguous]

There is no real difference between a serious philosopher and one who isn't, as long as one is thinking about what thoughts occur between what one sees and hears, as a qualifier for belonging to that art of philosophy.

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?

That you see no point beyond appreciating that process of thought that You consider as practical philosophy, does not disconnect You from the implications of its seriousness, while at the same time does not induce others reading You within considering those implications.

It does make for more sense to become more practically minded, as in our case, having come to practically identical positions.

But at times it makes sense for the sake of more connections, not to completely exclude all else.

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...

Otherwise, there appears no issue, except the arxjaoc contrariness, of left behind truncations but even then, the conflicting ideas can at least be written down as problematic to the degree of becoming paradoxical.

...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.

[surreptitious75]

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

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

[iambiguous]

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[iambiguous]

Yet another take on all this: https://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.

[Meno_]

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

[iambiguous]

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?

[Meno_]

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?

That would only he would know, if even that.

[surreptitious75]

what is construed by you to be the least harmful choice may well be deemed anything but by others

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 dont 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

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

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

[Meno_]

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.

[iambiguous]

what is construed by you to be the least harmful choice may well be deemed anything but by others

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

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?

[iambiguous]

Next up...

https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/why ... er-nothing

To get us started thinking about it, let’s distinguish between reasons and causes. When we ask why something is the case, depending on our purposes and what kind of explanation we seek, we might be asking for a reason, or we might be asking for a cause.

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.

If God's existence precedes the cosmos, and God’s will is sufficient to bring a physical universe into existence, then we’ve just pushed the question back a level. Why is there a God rather than nothing at all?

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":

...if we think of the Big Bang as an event, there was something before it that caused it to happen. But whatever caused the Big Bang must itself have a cause, and so on. The result of this thinking is that we end up in an infinite regress of causes, no further toward answering our original question.

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:

Here’s why the question we started off with is so tricky. If you start off with absolutely nothing—no space, no time, no God, no initial conditions—then how does something magically come into existence from nothing? I don’t see how we’ll ever be able to come up with a satisfactory answer to that question.

Maybe, then, we should just conclude that there is no explanation for existence—it’s just a brute fact. Maybe the world just is.

On the other hand:

This approach was favored by two great philosophers, David Hume and Bertrand Russell, and it certainly has some appeal. But for some, it may feel like a cop-out. Just because we haven’t yet been able to figure out why there’s something rather than nothing, it doesn’t mean there’s no answer to the question.

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?

[surreptitious75]

how is it demonstrated definitively that what we agree or disagree with reflects some level of autonomy

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