Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Blogger William Orem wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 19:59 GMT
For those looking for some late-summer reading of a Foundational sort, I want to recommend
Jim Holt's *Why Does the World Exist?*
It's a simplified romp through several approaches toward what might (with a tip of the pen to David Chalmers) be called "the hard question of ontology": Why is there something rather than nothing?
This is a notoriously tricky
issue, in the first place because it isn't immediately apparent whether there's a coherent question being posed at all. It may be nothing more than a
trick of language that makes us think there's something to be explained . . . in
something. Even to get past the second word ("Why is . . .") may be, in a sense, to beg the question. After all, something, of some sort, must *be*, in order for this--or any!--question to be posed . . . right?
Actually, some philosophers are in the habit of denying that last point--saying that if nothing existed, the question could then "in principle" be asked: Why is there *nothing* instead of *something*? Robert Nozick, no intellectual slouch, felt this a credible
position. But is it? After all, nothingness is not a state of being that can be pondered over "from within," so to speak. Only from an
existing cosmos can one imagine what might be asked, by no one, about a non-existing one. Non-existence may be little more than a semantic fantasy.
And so the terminology whirls us 'round, before we even get started. To his credit, Holt avoids the pitfall of throwing a Hegelian wall of language at the problem; his book is quite readable. (You can almost hear the editorial team: "Come on Jim--simplify, simplify!") On the down side, things are simplified to the point where it may not stir much reaction in people who are already familiar with these discussions--the very people, one would assume, who constitute his primary readership.
One example: Holt shyly poses the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" to an unnamed theoretical cosmologist whose response--"Okay, what you're really asking about is a violation of matter/antimatter parity . . ."--frightens him off, and is meant to stand in for the inaccessible complexity of modern physics. But
baryon asymmetry isn't such unfamiliar territory, I should think; and the leap from pure ontology to the better-understood cosmological issue of why there is a residue of matter would have been an intriguing one to follow up on.
It's fun when Max Tegmark, Andrei Linde and Alex Vilenkin make appearances, as well as some other names familiar to FQX-ers. Less apposite--and in some ways more interesting--are occasional diversions into art, such as a recurrent commentary on Sartre (and a surprisingly trenchant interview with John Updike). Sartre's discussion of nothingness-haunted being remains fascinating over a half century after he wrote it, but it is surely based on an individual, largely aesthetic sensibility--not the kind of thing that can be profitably set next to scientific debate.
Of course, some thinkers blur the line. "Speculative cosmologist" John Leslie argues for "extreme
axiarchism," a modern form of Platonism, whereby goodness brings the universe into existence by way of "ethical requiredness." It's better, in some sense, that things are than that they aren't, which fact (?) causes, or at least underwrites, existence itself. Leslie is fun to listen to, but shows little concern for what constitutes evidence:
"I'm always a little astonished when people say, 'Look, there's no evidence for your view.' Well, I say, there's one rather striking piece of evidence: the fact that there is a world rather than just a blank. Why do they discount this? The sheer existence of something rather than nothing simply cries out for explanation. And where are the competitors to my Platonic theory?"
Here I would say that Prof. Leslie need only serve as science editor at a newspaper for a year or two to learn how often "Look! The world exists!" is cited as 'evidence' for someone's grand theory. (I used to get about one a month.)
Which gets us back to the Gordian knot of the question. The simple fact of Being can't, in itself, be used as evidence for a Theory of Being--anyone's theory of being. ("Where are the competitors to my theory?" is also logically invalid, come to think of it: a theory stands or falls on evidential weight, not on someone else's ability to supply a counter-theory.) Supporting evidence would have to come from somewhere other than what is being explained; unfortunately, the question is so posed as to eliminate any other "somewhere else" from the outset.
But perhaps this is my own paucity of thought. The realm of mathematical truths has been argued to supply exactly such a "somewhere else," the (in)famous World Three hypothesis. I wonder . . . is our understanding of mathematics approaching the time when it can tackle this ultimate Foundational riddle in a credible way?
Dear God, I just hope it's not complete mathematical reductionism. With all deference to Max, that idea gives me the creeps.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 20:19 GMT
"Dear God, I just hope it's not complete mathematical reductionism. With all deference to Max, that idea gives me the creeps."
You are not alone in that feeling.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
danhawkley replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 07:09 GMT
I think your assessment of mathematics is fairly common. It can be demonstrated mathematically, however, that your fear is unfounded. For example: none can be excluded. More specifically, only one of these equations is accurate:
everything + nothing = nothing.
everything + nothing = everything.
The primary fact is that everything (including us) hasn't been annihilated. Otherwise we wouldn't exist (mathematically or otherwise). Check out my pdf and feel free to contact me.
danhawkley@gmail.com
attachments:
1_Big_Science.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 23, 2012 @ 01:26 GMT
Hi William,
what became clear to me from reading Max Tegmark's description of the Mathematical Universe is that mathematics is basically describing relations. That may sound obvious but I hadn't really thought about it in that way and had, until then, concentrated instead upon the communication aspect of it and how that has to be something separate from the material universe.
It seems to me, the function of representing relations is what it is most importantly about, more than any mathematical convention or form of notation. Rather like poetry can be about expressing relationships of observed things or the relationship of the poet to those things, who may convey his emotional responses through his writing. The structure of the poem on paper, the language type such as German or Latin, Russian, Chinese or English and whether it is type written in a simple font or written in calligraphic style is of relatively little, if any, importance to the 'essence' being communicated.
When we get right down to what the material(object) Universe is, rather than the observed (Image) Universe, it is a constantly changing animated system of 'somethings' in which there are relations between those abstract entities we chose to use in our descriptions of it. The relations allow it to 'become what it will be' rather than it being 'dead' and unchanging. Then there is also the description of the Image universe which could be likened to the poet's description of his relationship to the things experienced.
That reduction (to foundational relations), thought about in the way I have just described, is not creepy or cold to me. Perhaps you would prefer a Universe that is fundamentally magic. Magic is deception. lies or incomplete knowledge giving misunderstanding. Or a universe that is fundamentally constructed from Love. What is Love? Supportive or creative relations between entities? If so it certainly has a part to play.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 20:50 GMT
"Why does the world exist?"
Why do you hypothesize that it does?
The Anthropic Principle provides an answer to the latter question; we would not be here, to ask the question, if it does not.
There is no way to obtain the answer to the first question, except to be told the answer by an entity that already knows it. It is no different than the answer to the question "How do you decipher a message that was enciphered with a one-time-pad? The answers cannot be deduced from any observables. But that is not the same thing as saying that no answer exists.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 03:24 GMT
Stuff happens.
The problem with the assumption of meaning, a reason, ie. "why," is that meaning is reductionistic and static. That which is left over when all that is meaningless is distilled away. Meanwhile reality is dynamic and wholistic. Anything which lacks some motivating energy content soon does cease to exist.
Possibly to consider the question further, we might ask what is "nothing?" It is a lack of both form and action. The only concept we can conceive of, with those qualities, is empty space. Lacking action it is atemporal and neutral. No singularities to provide initial form and action. Lacking form it cannot be bound or bent, so it is unbounded and thus infinite. Being neutral, it is inertial, ie. the nothing of absolute zero.
Yet if we add up all action and form, would it all cancel out? Everything adding up to nothing? No cycle of expanding energy and contracting mass, just empty space?
Possibly this inertial state is necessarily unstable and has to fluctuate.
We seek to order and explain that which is, but order is only part of the equation and the smaller part at that, since it is necessarily a reductionistic framing of an unframed dynamic.
Oh, well. Stuff happens.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 14:52 GMT
The sphere exists because this light, infinite creates the mass, the eternal physical sphere !
The competitions can be a catalyzer, indeed, but there are limits ! a time for all after all.
ps I beleive that a lot of thinkers and scientists, theorists,....have difficulties to differenciate the infinity and the infinities, constants....
the physicality is indeed a bounded system in evolution !
In fact we can even make a classing with the infinities.It is logic , they appear due to our adds or multi.or this or that....The infinity is a concept so complex and so simple in the same time.The most important is to understand that this infinite light above our pure physicality creates this universal physical sphere. The codes of evolution inside the main central spheres, quant. and cosmol.,become potential pure energy of becoming....
Regards
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Andy M wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 19:37 GMT
The question of "why" does the world/universe exist is unanswerable.
Science when successful can only explain "how." The so-called answers have serious problems:
1) came from nothing, for example, via quantum fluctuations (uncertainty principle that states that "nothing" is not really "nothing"). But where do the quantum fluctuations come from? From the realization of some platonic mathematical structure? Well where does that come from, and how/why does it get translated into physical reality?
2) a creator of some kind. Well, same problem. Where does the creator come from?
report post as inappropriate
Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 20:56 GMT
In the absence of gravity, we are literally out of touch with reality. A very important point in this discussion. My essay, soon to appear, proves this.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 09:29 GMT
Hi William,
some why questions are very important and require answers, as they have a survival value. Such as why is that window open that I fastened shut and why is that knife missing from the chopping board? or why are there footprints of a large predator around the fence line?
When why questions are extended to inanimate objects or their arrangements, not involving actions of a higher biological organism, they do not necessarily give helpful answers. I might ask why is that rock there? (Not how did it get there?)If I use the rock as a hammer I might start to imagine the rock was placed there for that purpose. I might then start to imagine that everything has a purpose and a meaning rather than it just being as it is because of the former events that have occurred that have no personal meaning. Asking why there is a universe out there is the same kind of question on a bigger scale.
Also there is speculation that there could be nothing rather than something; but is nothing really possible? There don't seem to be any real nothings in nature. Even vacuum's have virtual particles popping in and out of existence or something there. Maybe there really is no such thing as nothing, except in the human imagination.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 23:31 GMT
It could be helpful to try to imagine where the universe can be put to obtain nothing rather than trying to imagine a universe emerging from nothing.
The visible universe could be compacted back into the data from which it was derived. Then it can be ignored because it only becomes a universe when the data is accessed and processed. With data compaction and miniaturisation of storage devices it should be possible to have the whole visible universe stored within a very small volume.If no one looks at it, or out into space any-more, it (the visible universe) isn't there, as it is an output reality from data processing. The storage device is part of the material universe.
The material from which that data was generated will have been recycled into the material existing, within the material universe (at uni-temporal-) Now (preceding the observed present), along with the potential sensory data content.
There is no way I can see, without magic or miracles or trickery, to make that material and data entirely disappear into nothing. It can be moved from place to place, rearranged disintegrated or amalgamated. Making it disappear into another universe is like asking for a magic hat. Yes I can make things disappear with a magic hat but it a trick not science.
However I have now got a more manageable universe because the material aspect is not spread over history but only exists as it is at one time (uni-temporal-Now) and the data from which a history can be fabricated is compacted into a data set rather than being spread over an unimaginably huge area of space-time.
How the idea of that residual material universe, always becoming what it is rather than what it was, is to be regarded is probably a matter for personal reflection and preference. Could describing it mathematically make -it- into something less awesome than it is? I think it's immune to inadequate descriptions of it (but maybe human minds aren't).
report post as inappropriate
mogmich wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 19:51 GMT
If absolutely NOTHING existed, there would be nothing to prevent SOMETHING from existing. But there would also be nothing to make this "something" exist, or to define what it is. It just exists as it is.
Since most things that exist, only exist because something made them ecist (energy, laws of nature etc.) all those existing things must have emerged from a basic reality that require NOTHING in order to exist!
... Maybe a little too philosophical?
report post as inappropriate
danhawkley replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 05:55 GMT
What requires nothing? Any concept of nothing. Synonymously, what requires non-existence? any concept of non-existence. Stated scientifically (evidence): The annihilation of everything has been predicted (as between observations) but it has never been observed (as between predictions). The proof is in the pdf.
attachments:
Big_Science.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 03:46 GMT
Hey folks,
I'm pretty sure that nothing exists, but all this darn stuff keeps getting in the way - whenever I try to get a good look at it. Paradoxically; nothing also gets in the way whenever I try to look at something, but most of the time I don't notice it's there.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
DorisLewis wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 06:18 GMT
I agree with thinking of the philosopher Adolf Grünbaum, "To marvel at existence is to assume that nothingness is somehow more natural, more restful. But why? The ancients started with matter, not the void; perhaps nothingness is stranger than being."
harley motorcycles for sale
report post as inappropriate
Michelle Kathryn McGee wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 02:12 GMT
I agree whole-heartedly with the last comment/quote. Nothingness is stranger than being.
I appreciate the difficulty in grasping it.
I am a scientist who like many others turned skeptical spiritual seeker. For a few laughs and maybe to permit a subtle rewiring of your hardwired thinking you can look at my most recent work
Healing Generation. If you make it far enough into the text you'll find a link to a paper I wrote in 2003 that holds a really interesting perspective on the whole somethingness-nothingness conundrum. Prepare to be smitten.
Or if you prefer to keep constructing meanings in the name of science that are effective mostly just at combating your own fear of perplexity, by all means, pass the chance by for something truly original - experience itself - in order to attend to more important business.
Blessings, michelle
report post as inappropriate
Zbigniew Modrzejewski wrote on Nov. 24, 2012 @ 20:36 GMT
Leibniz asked: Why is there something rather than nothing?
More precisely: Why is there the ontological Being rather than ontological total Nothingness?
The answer is so simple and obvious: Because the ontological total non-existence, Nothingness, Non-being is not an ontological alternative for the Existence, because it does not exists in reality, but only as a concept, like Santa Claus. For something to be an alternatice, first it must exist.
"EXISTING NON-EXISTENCE" IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY, HENCE CANNOT EXIST IN REALITY, similar to the famous "squared-circle".
The Existence exists, because one of its parts -- our Universe -- exists.
Where is the Nothingness, Non-being, non-existence? Nowhere to be found!
Here is my detailed explanation:
Why is there something rather than nothing?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 25, 2012 @ 02:47 GMT
Dear Zbigniew,
I think you have made a very good point. To be and nothing don't really go together. I think I'll save reading your detailed explanation for a dull day. The concept of existing non existence, or non existent nothing for that matter, is mind bending enough; like 'this sentence is false'.
.........................
Though, if the 'something'in question is observer fabricated experiences or manifestations (experienced as reality), i.e. the output manifestation of data processing rather than the independently existing external reality, it would be possible not to have a manifestation (so no something aka nothing) if the organism is dead, therefore not observing; or the device is switched off or broken, therefore not observing.
report post as inappropriate
Zbigniew Modrzejewski wrote on Nov. 26, 2012 @ 19:58 GMT
Dear Georgina,
Hello! :)
Thank you for noticing my post at all !! :)
However, my impression is, based on your reply, that you completely misunderstood what I tried to say.
Please, try to notice that my argument is not limited to: "the independently existing external reality".
I have a question for you:
What happens when all organisms are dead and...
view entire post
Dear Georgina,
Hello! :)
Thank you for noticing my post at all !! :)
However, my impression is, based on your reply, that you completely misunderstood what I tried to say.
Please, try to notice that my argument is not limited to: "the independently existing external reality".
I have a question for you:
What happens when all organisms are dead and all devices are switched off or broken, and therefore nobody and nothing at all is observing?
Is this THE END of everything (the Universe), and after that, everything that exists is total, global, complete NOTHING? (forever?) And after that event, can something (a conscious observer) appear from that total, global, complete NOTHING again, perhaps? Or, is it the final, forever all-pervading NOTHING (ontological non-existence) ???
You see, my original point was that there is always something existing somewhere, because "EXISTING NOTHING" is not more possible in reality than the famous "squared-circle" or Santa Claus.
It is very important that you understand that I am not talking just about local lack (absence) of something in particular, like perception of one observer, who has died. :)
You cannot count how many possible things are missing from any given place, can you? :)
If our Universe (whatever its ultimate nature may be!) were to be limited from outside, it could not be limited by ontological non-existence, because such thing is only a concept that cannot exist in reality.
"EXISTING NON-EXISTENCE" IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY, HENCE CANNOT EXIST IN REALITY.
NON-EXISTENCE, by definition, does not exists, therefore, the ontological Existence is eternal.
The ontological Existence is eternal, because there is simply no ontological alternative!!! :)
Got it? :)
Is it too simple, to obvious? :)
Were you expecting something more profound and complicated, understandable only to postdoc Ph.d.s, something like quantum physics or Einstein's GTR, perhaps?
With respect and gratitude,
Zbig
www.worldsci.org/people/Zbigniew_Modrzejewski
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 26, 2012 @ 21:28 GMT
Hi Zbigniew, I don't think I misunderstood you. The first part of my reply was just indicating a similarity of existing non existence with the liar paradox. Which is a mind bending and interestingly difficult thing to pigeon hole in set theory.
You wrote "It is very important that you understand that I am not talking just about local lack (absence) of something in particular,..."Your not talking about it reminds me of an art lesson in which I had to draw a collection of chairs only by giving the outlines of the spaces between them. Which is a really fascinating exercise because there is a tendency to pay far less attention to what is not there rather than what is there. The voids can be recorded because of the material substance between them.
The Kanizsa Triangle Illusion The non existent triangle 'exists' only because of the existing parts of the diagram
I still think the idea given in the the second part of my reply was an interesting observation : ) I knew when writing it that it was only dealing with one facet of reality not the Entirety but it was sort of digging at what is really meant by 'nothing'. Is absence of detection really absence?( Rhetorical question). I think that is an important consideration. Due to the way in which we build our image of the universe from received data we can not have awareness of the material universe existing at this time. By the way I agree, eternal 'stuff' makes more sense to me too. I did not make that clear in my earlier reply.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 26, 2012 @ 22:05 GMT
Re. the Kanizsa triangle, I could record its perimeter, area, lengths of each side, angles, apparent colour and, if a compass or separate reference object was given with it, its relative orientation. Which is an impressive list of characteristics for something that isn't.
report post as inappropriate
Zbigniew Modrzejewski replied on Nov. 26, 2012 @ 23:19 GMT
Hi Georgina,
I hope you are not one of those people, who confuse and mix up reality with logical conclusions (made by people in their minds) or mathematical concepts, like zero?
The liar paradox belongs to formal logic, and is not present in reality outside of our minds.
There are no paradoxese existing in nature, outside of our minds that understand them....
view entire post
Hi Georgina,
I hope you are not one of those people, who confuse and mix up reality with logical conclusions (made by people in their minds) or mathematical concepts, like zero?
The liar paradox belongs to formal logic, and is not present in reality outside of our minds.
There are no paradoxese existing in nature, outside of our minds that understand them.
The Kanizsa Triangle exists outside of our minds, in nature, only insofar as our "flexible" definition of "triangle" will permit it. One could say there is no triangle there, but only 3 white angles! :)
One apple may be represented by the mathematical concept of integer number: "1".
Two apples may be represented by the mathematical concept of integer number: "2".
So, we have correspondence between mathematical concept and reality.
We can see an apple on the kitchen table.
We take the mathematical concept of integer number: "0" representing: "no apple" or " "no appleS" or "zero apple(s)".
Now, where is the correspondence between mathematical concept and reality?
Is it existing in reality, or is it existing in our mind?
Can we locate "zero apple" on the kitchen table?
Where exactly is "zero apple" located, at which place on the kitchen table?
How many "zero apple" are on the kitchen table?
How many "zero apple" can we put into a basket?
Could someone verify it empirically afterwards that we have 5 "zero apple" in the basket and not 8 "zero apple" in the basket?
And how many of other possible "zero"s are on the kitchen table?
Can we remove all those "zero"s from the kitchen table?
Can we verify empirically that it is still before or already after removing them? There is no difference, isn't it! :)
The existing "nothing" in reality, is absurd -- it is a self-contraditction!
You see, "nothing" does not exist in reality any other way than just as a concept or logical conclusion -- in our mind -- that something is not present.
The "nothing" does not exist in reality, and therefore it cannot constitute an effective real alternative for entire ontological Existence, which has been everywhere around us.
Thank you,
Zbig
www.worldsci.org/people/Zbigniew_Modrzejewski
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 00:59 GMT
Wow I wasn't expecting that. I think I have a pretty good grasp on what is and isn't reality. I was just pointing out the similarity between 'non existent existence' and 'this sentence is false'. The triangle is great isn't it? It too is a bit mind bending because it doesn't fit neatly into the classification of things.
Can the Kanizsa triangle go into the set of all triangles as it isn't a triangle really, not even a triangle shaped hole? (Rhetorical question, though perhaps there is an answer to that, that someone has previously pondered) It is in my opinion another case of 'it depends' rather than yes or no. At the intersection between the Image reality that is experienced and the independently existing external Object reality.To give a yes or no answer one or other of the facets of reality has to be considered alone; and can be contradicted by considering the other.
As to the location of the absence of something, as I was saying with the drawing chairs and the triangle illustration, it is possible to observe the absence of something only in relation to what is present.Its not possible to have a hole without something for the hole to be in.Given that there is something for the absence to be in, such as an apple sized space in an unbroken line of apples, it can't really be said not to be there either. That's irrelevant to your original post though because as you pointed out your were not talking about local absence.
I do get it. Nothing in nothing, observed by nothing, non existence, isn't anything. It is not a part of material univere, or the source of it, or the opposite of it. Important but perhaps the full profundity of that realisation by itself is just lost on me. Regards Georgina
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Zbigniew Modrzejewski wrote on Nov. 26, 2012 @ 20:22 GMT
RE: Why Does the World Exist?
I am sorry, but is the question:
What are particular reasons (causes) that our Universe came into being?
or, more general, was it just paraphrasing Leibniz:
Why is there something rather than nothing? (more precisely: Why is there the ontological Existence rather than ontological Non-Existence? )
These are two different questions (a bit overlapping, though).
Thanks,
Zbig http://www.worldsci.org/people/Zbigniew_Modrzejewski
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 02:28 GMT
Why does the universe exist? Is it even possible to answer that question scientifically? If science can't answer that question, do we have to resort to "God created the universe"?
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 04:03 GMT
If we can't answer this question, maybe we should ask a different question. Is the physical made of some ubiqitous substance (a quasi substance perhaps) that accounts for space, time, space-time, energy, GR, QM, etc...
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 10:29 GMT
Jason.
Is it equally valid to look at empty space and ask, "why does nothing exist"? As there is far more empty space, perhaps that's more valid!?
So then the question should be "why does something exist HERE" (as opposed to everywhere else, and then, I agree; "what is it made of?" which of course has no answer yet as we haven't yet 'named' it! (actually untrue, I christened it 'comprathene' a few years ago, but it didn't seem to catch on, confirming my point.
I'd like to offer an answer to why our Universe exists, which is the same answer to why the Milky way exists, and the same answer applicable to ALL galaxies and universes; It is because the re-ionized matter of the previous iterations had to go 'somewhere'! When you recycle a tin can, it doesn't just get annihilated, it comes back as something else, probably parts of other tin cans, cars, suns or planets. Eternally.
Beyond there I suspect we can all only speculate about the possibility of some greater intelligence having a hand in 'starting the ball rolling', who may have died long ago and been recycled infinitely many times, or in his time it may be only ten minutes after creation. I say jolly good thing we're not part of the 'nothing majority'! My own feeling is that speculation may be fun, but perhaps we should work on improving our intellectual capacity one step at a time. God knows it needs it!
Hope you're well.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 14:57 GMT
Peter,
The question for me is “when something exist?”. For Physics, this question become “when something exist physically?”. This question is fundamental, imho. While “why something exists” is metaphysical.
Sorry I couldn't resist! … after catching a gleam of your post to Jason.
Kostas
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 16:00 GMT
Kostas,
Good to hear from you. I agree, as implicit in my suggesting there's also a lot of nothing.
I always consider matter as 'motion.' If the motion of a 'particle of mass' ceases then it ceases to 'exist'.
That then takes us back to motion 'wrt what'? (as motion can only be relative!) and where does the energy go, which takes up back to dark energy, which is made of comprathene.
I looked up 'something' and the definition did NOT include dark energy, so assume that must then be nothing, which is precisely the same specification as my 'comprathene'! All sorted then?
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 22:29 GMT
Peter my friend,
You are succeeding once again reluctantly dragging me into a deep discussion I deliberately avoided.
When something physically exist? My answer to that would be when it occupies 'physical space' and takes 'physical time'. Thus, in my view, all physical theory begins by specifying in formal mathematical laws what is 'physical space' and what is 'physical time'. On...
view entire post
Peter my friend,
You are succeeding once again reluctantly dragging me into a deep discussion I deliberately avoided.
When something physically exist? My answer to that would be when it occupies 'physical space' and takes 'physical time'. Thus, in my view, all physical theory begins by specifying in formal mathematical laws what is 'physical space' and what is 'physical time'. On second thought and reversing myself – taking the matter one stage prior to such manifestation – something exists if it has being. So when something has being? For me, when it is in equilibrium with my conscious mind. My sense is at that moment – when something is for me (has being) – space and time emerge and separate in a balance of opposites creating existence. Space and time cannot exist separately from one another. But this is getting to be too philosophical and I don't wish to be too deep into it.
So what fundamental law in Physics determines 'physical time'? I believe the Second Law of Thermodynamics does. If the Second Law is understood to say "every physical event takes some positive duration of time to occur". Thus, nothing physical can happen at an instant! The connection here with entropy and time is clear. Entropy is the 'amount' of evolution/devolution during a positive duration of time. For more discussion on this see my chapter,
"The Thermodynamics in Planck's Law".
And what fundamental law in Physics determines 'physical space'? I am not as sure on this one! But I believe it is the CSL Postulate. Since CSL can equivalently be stated to mean "all observers are at rest relative to the space they occupy". And this may be related to your observation: "If the motion of a 'particle of mass' ceases then it ceases to 'exist'." Since, if motion ceases, the mass at rest with the space it occupies is the same as space. Being indistinguishable, mass ceases to exist!
I believe in 'absolute motion'! Motion is 'relative' only as a 'measurement'.
Kostas
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 28, 2012 @ 00:13 GMT
I think the physics community is going to spend a very long time avoiding the idea that the aether medium can exist and still be undetectable. Michelson-Morley were looking for a particulate medium that obeyed neither relativity nor quantum mechanics. In this article about the Casimir Effect, there is a picture of with waves on the outside of two plates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
In my opinion, those waves depict a real natural phenomena that have permitivity and permeability built into them as characteristics; in doing so, they would automatically transmit photons at the speed of light.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 20:11 GMT
Hi Peter,
I think if we're going to speculate about where everything came from, we should borrow from the best and most satisfying religions and philosophies available. I for one like New Age philosophies mixed with some super advanced alien intelligences that can radically alter how nature manifests. They have hyper-drives and exist as pan-dimensional lifeforms. For me, this makes it fun to speculate.
I can see why "comprathene" didn't really catch on. It's sounds "aetherish" to an organic chemist, but the scientific community usually poo poos all aether explanations. And a lay person would overlook the chemical sounding name. Whatever we call it, I think science needs a name for the mysterious substance that behaves like the quantum vacuum, quantum mechanics and relativity. Then maybe someday we'll understand how to manipulate it to create time dilation fields, and hijack the mechanisms that conserve energy.
report post as inappropriate
Zbigniew Modrzejewski wrote on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 22:07 GMT
Peter Jackson wrote:
"I'd like to offer an answer to why our Universe exists, which is the same answer to why the Milky way exists, and the same answer applicable to ALL galaxies and universes; It is because the re-ionized matter of the previous iterations had to go 'somewhere'! When you recycle a tin can, it doesn't just get annihilated, it comes back as something else, probably parts of other tin cans, cars, suns or planets. Eternally."
Peter, that is what Dr. Roger Penrose proposed in his latest book!
But other than him, the eternal-cyclical Universe/Existence idea is as old as the World itself, most notably present in philosophy of Hinduism and Buddhism. :)
So, no Big Bang, no Creator God -- two most important things in the Western civilization would be out ...
If our Universe (whatever its ultimate nature may be!) were to be limited from outside, it could not be limited by ontological non-existence, because such thing is only a concept that cannot exist in reality.
"EXISTING NON-EXISTENCE" IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY, HENCE CANNOT EXIST IN REALITY.
NON-EXISTENCE, by definition, does not exists, therefore, the ontological Existence is eternal.
The ontological Existence is eternal, because there is simply no ontological alternative. :)
Zbig http://www.worldsci.org/people/Zbigniew_Modrzejewski
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Zbigniew Modrzejewski wrote on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 23:44 GMT
Alexander Vilenkin, a theoretical physicist who is director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University, made statement that "Nothing is nothing...Not just no matter. It's no space. No Time. Nothing" leads to a definition of nothingness as a "closed spacetime of zero radius, the most "complete and utter nothingness that scientific concepts can capture. It is mathematically devoid not only of stuff but also of location and duration."
and further:
"Using the principles of quantum theory, he [Vilenkin] showed that, out of such an initial state of nothingness, a tiny bit of energy-filled vacuum could spontaneously 'tunnel' into existence....Driven by the negative pressure of 'inflation,' this bit of energetic vacuum would undergo a runaway explosion. In a couple of microseconds it would attain cosmic proportions, issuing in a cascading fireball of light and matter -- the Big Bang...The whole scheme would appear to be scientifically irreproachable."
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Nov. 28, 2012 @ 01:48 GMT
"The whole scheme would appear to be scientifically irreproachable."
Yeah, sure...
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 28, 2012 @ 02:08 GMT
That's the most useless definition of nothingness I've ever heard. Since the scientific community has no reasonable idea how or why the big bang occured, then it must mean there was, or is, a supernatural Creator.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman wrote on Nov. 28, 2012 @ 02:17 GMT
The only way we know something exists is in relation to other things that exist. That raises a grey area of existence, a halo if you will, around these relationships, of what might exist, but is in some degree of equilibrium.
Also, there is a relationship between existence and non-existence that is as fundamental to reality as relations between what does exist. Past and future do not...
view entire post
The only way we know something exists is in relation to other things that exist. That raises a grey area of existence, a halo if you will, around these relationships, of what might exist, but is in some degree of equilibrium.
Also, there is a relationship between existence and non-existence that is as fundamental to reality as relations between what does exist. Past and future do not physically exist, but they are integral to what does. If two objects hit each other, it creates an event, yet a moment later, that event doesn't physically exist, yet it was the measure of the existence of those two objects relative to one another. Me getting a cup of tea doesn't physically exist, but I'm appreciating it did recently occur. You can't separate the noun from the verb, because there is no such thing as a dimensionless point in time. So how is the energy more real than what it does? Energy manifests information. Information defines energy. Energy goes from past to future events, as the information so created goes from being in the future to being in the past. Given the conservation of energy, in order to create new information, old information is destroyed. Can't have your cup of tea and drink it too. Our bodies and brains are composed of energy, but our minds are a record of the information. It is a constant process of existence and non-existence.
Zbig,
I think the idea of nothing as a singularity is flawed. A zero point is still a point. I think nothing is a void. The Big Bang theory is based on the assumption quanta of light are point particles and the only way they can be redshifted is by recession, but what internal attractive force would hold a quantam of light together? It is of only one nature and that is expansion. An expanding quanta is a wave and there are a number of explanations for why a wave could be redshifted and also explain other cosmological features without resorting to inflation or dark energy.
If space itself is expanding, then what dimension sets the speed of light? If space were to expand, such that two galaxies x lightyears apart were to grow to 2x lightyears apart, that is not expanding space in terms of what the light is traveling across, but simply an increased distance of stable space. So where does that stable dimension the light is crossing come from?
If light is redshifted proportional to distance, then the cosmic background radiation would simply be the solution to Olber's paradox; The distant light is redshifted off the visible spectrum. Consider that fully formed galaxies and galaxy clusters are detected out to over 13 billion lightyears away.They would have had to condense out of post-inflation stage gases in half a billion years. That's about how long it takes our galaxy to make two revolutions. I think further examination of the background radiation will show clues of even more distant ones, not evidence of a singularity. If I was at my home computer, I'd link a few of the more interesting examples.
So if space is the void, what evidence is there of its extant non-existence?
Centrifugal force.
Centrifugal force doesn't exist because some outside reference tells you an object is spinning, but is the relationship of spin to the inertial equilibrium of space.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Dec. 6, 2012 @ 01:38 GMT
In my essays (2010 & 2011) I suggest that we can get something from nothing by going around the rule of non-contradiction. Nothing and something can’t be both at the SAME TIME. The loophole is that inserting time between the two makes both possible. The result is a highly dynamic universe only made of time and variations of its rate of evolution; increasing, decreasing, changing direction etc.
This makes a universe of one single nature and therefore operational on logic; addition, substitution, etc. something you would expect to drive the observed spontaneous evolution of the universe.
Since the universe is all of the same nature it needs not, in a first instance, to be known what it is made of. Then, mathematics can take charge of all DESCRIPTIONS. But, if we want to UNDERSTAND what it is we are calculating and why it behaves the way it does... we have to identify this universal dynamic substance. And what is time? A continual explosion of existence into nothingness. A substance and a cause, all in one.
Marcel,
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Dec. 6, 2012 @ 04:15 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie,
Please forgive me if I am dismayed by your comments. You're basically saying what alchemists, mystics, astrologers and numerologists have been saying for countless centuries. But when they say it, there is this aura of awe about them. They capture our imagination. They tell us prophecies of the future, and tell us how we fit in the world. It's just that, if our conversations about physics are going to become this faded and empty of meaningfulness, then we may as well start reading books on the occult and paying psychics to read our palms. At least those people are experts at giving us warm and fuzzy feelings.
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Dec. 6, 2012 @ 05:14 GMT
Jason,
You have such a long way to go! I just love physics as much as you do. But I know it promises and its limits. I just show you a bit of what lies beyond these limits, something that is a complement to our knowledge. I think that we have been down that road you and I. If you are not up to the answer, don`t bother asking the question.
Cheers,
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Dec. 6, 2012 @ 06:15 GMT
Marcel,
Am I up to the answer? As long as it's the answer I want. If I had my way, there would be pan-dimensional alien intelligences telepathizing with humans as they travel through hyperspace. Of course, the reality of it is that physicists always look away when the ETI's are communicating. I keep asking the ETI's to land on the SETI dishes (and crush them), but they've been politely ignoring my question. There is also something about, "if you break it (Earth) you buy it", something about the extremely enormous amount of work it would be to make first contact AND leave a positive impression.
You see, I can understand the basics of hyper-drive physics (Hyper-Drives for Human Dummies), but I can't get you any scientific evidence.
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Dec. 6, 2012 @ 12:00 GMT
Jason,
I do read here a mix of humor & frustration. My net search gives me....
-Jason Wolfe-: ...It is May 18th, 2011, and there is very little interest in the development in the hyper-drive, or its prerequisite, the gravity field generator. I have tried, without success, to discuss the ideas necessary to build what today would be called: the Alcubierre drive.... I, Jason Mark Wolfe, (a.k.a. Mazulu), know the secret to warp field generation. I will teach you everything I know.
...
..-.Wiki Alcubierre Drive-:....The Alcubierre drive (or Alcubierre metric see: Metric tensor) is a speculative idea based on a valid solution of Einstein's field equations as proposed by Miguel Alcubierre,
(Ah! SPECULATIVE: You are out there on the fringe....just, like, me,:-)
ME: Space metric... There is no space, forget that. But a time rate metric would require that there is a dip in the rate of flow of time in front and a bump at the back. Don`t even need to mark it -front- and -back- because that is the construction of the photon and it knows which way to go. But the photon doesn`t go any faster than the local time rate of explosion c !!! *&?%%$/" Not sure what you need to change to this structure to go beyond c ... without slipping into the next dimension
Good luck (no matter what, it won`t be ready for the Dec 21 2012..)
Cheers,
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
Fuoye wrote on Mar. 1, 2013 @ 10:34 GMT
The world exist because God wants it to.
http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
report post as inappropriate
Federal University Oye Ekiti replied on Mar. 1, 2013 @ 10:37 GMT
Welcome to Fuoye www.fuoye.edu.ng
Dignity and Character for National Transformation................http://ecampus@fuoye.edu.ng
report post as inappropriate
Sridattadev wrote on Mar. 1, 2013 @ 14:53 GMT
Dear All,
There is only the cosmological constant - conscience or singularity (i) in the universe absolutely. what we percieve of the relative reality is the duality drawn out of this constant singularity.
"Consciousness is the sphere of universal schwarzschild radius (zero to infinity) with a central cosmological constant of the conscience (i)".
Universe is the iSphere.
Zero (nothing) = i = Infinity (everytihng)who am i?
I am human, i is god
I am one of our kind, i is everyone of all kinds
I am present, i is omnipresent
I am potent, i is omnipotent
I am scient, i is omniscient
I am something, i is nothing and everything
why does i exist(manifest in duality) or not(absolute rest in singularity)?
I loves to be or not to be.
Love,
Sridattadev.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 1, 2013 @ 17:11 GMT
Why Does the World Exist?
Easy: Because it can. Next question please.
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 8, 2013 @ 22:07 GMT
Okay, here's the next question - why do you think you can get away with nonsense like 'because it can'? That's not a reason. Nothing might have existed, but it would still have been possible for something to exist.
The article above is really just as stupid. The writer assumes, when asking the question 'why does anything exist?', that the answer to the question is affected by the conditions relating to the asking of the question. That's nonsense - the conditions relating to the asking of it do not affect the question itself, or what the answer might be. Where did he get the idea that the ability to ask the question affects the answer?
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 8, 2013 @ 22:40 GMT
Well, I'll help you with that last one. Where did he get the idea that the ability to ask the question affects the answer? Misuse of the anthropic principle, that's where.
People think the anthropic principle allows them to avoid difficult questions, but it often doesn't. It explains why we find around us conditions that allowed life to evolve, but not how or why those conditions arose. You can't say they had to come about because we're asking the question, but you can say that we wouldn't be asking it otherwise. There's a massive difference, and those who don't see it, like William Orem, are sloppy thinkers, or biased thinkers.
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 9, 2013 @ 18:05 GMT
Let me put that more clearly, and ask William Orem for a response.
The point I'm making is that the anthropic principle can't be used to say that because we're here to ask questions, the conditions allowing life to evolve HAD to appear. We can say that they must HAVE appeared, or we wouldn't be here to ask questions, but that's very different from saying they were compelled to emerge in the first place. Why they emerged in the first place is still unexplained.
So we can say we're here because these conditions emerged, but we can't say they emerged because we're here! This reversal of cause and effect is a very common mistake, made by people who simply don't think it through. It's a case of confusing two ideas that look vaguely similar until you actually look at it. The cause is often laziness due to wishful thinking, people often want this kind of question to go away, and they see a way to make it appear to go away.
So I'm asking for a response William Orem, I'm saying your article includes a lot of that kind of thinking. And as I said, the particular question you ask - why does anything exist at all? - is entirely separate from the details of the asking of the question.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 9, 2013 @ 20:13 GMT
@Hello Vera
Check this one out.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/#WhyTheSomRatT
haNot
Bill Orem's question is one of the most profound philosophical questions. And by the way, my answer is correct. The next question is "how does it exists?" And this leads to physics and testable sentences away from Wittgensteinian criticism of playing with words.
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 9, 2013 @ 20:57 GMT
Thanks Florin.
I know it's a serious philosophical question, but I disagree when you say it's one of the most profound. I found your long post to William Orem here
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/74
and also went briefly to your essay, as well as looking at the page you linked to, which I'd gone to before, and am familiar with some of what's there anyway. I found nothing to answer my point, but if I missed it then I'm sorry. Perhaps you could give me an answer? The point I've made about what you said above is as follows. It's very simple, and the fact that it's simple doesn't stop it from being good philosophy - in fact, all other things being equal, quite the opposite.
You said that something exists because it can. I replied that this isn't a reason, because nothing might exist, but it would still be possible for something to exist. So the fact that something can exist wouldn't make any difference.
Please answer that point, thank you.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 10, 2013 @ 05:56 GMT
"I replied that this isn't a reason, because nothing might exist"
Now let's look around: I see existence so "nothing might exist" is clearly false.
You say "A because B" but since B is false, A could be either true or false, but in any case A is not necessarily true.
I don't quite follow your argument, but I am interested by it and I can guarantee I do have very solid justification for my answers.
By the way, I was at a disadvantage not knowing your real name, but by process of elimination I have a very good guess and I won't reveal it publicly. My email address is fmoldove@gmail.com By the way, I launched my own website now: http://www.florinmoldoveanu.org/
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 10, 2013 @ 07:04 GMT
Hello Vera
You are confusing logical possibility with the form of existence knowable to us. If A there is always the possibility of not-A. In other words, it is never possible to attain an extrinsic (‘absolute’) reference against which to establish what A ‘really’ is. So, it is irrelevant to science what the possible alternatives are, because we can never know them. The corollary of this is that A is a closed system, the defining factor being ‘of’, or ‘not of’, it. It is definitive and can be comprehensively explained, from within.
Physical existence is that which is potentially knowable to us (which includes proper hypothesis, ie not belief). And there is a simple and definable physical process which underpins that, this is nothing to do with the subsequent processing of physical input received. That is the determining factor of the closed system. At the most basic level, existence, for us, involves something which exists independently of the mechanism which detects it, and it alters.
Or as Florin quite rightly said,”because it can”, and “I see existence”. We can only investigate what may, or may not, be a particular form of existence, but that is irrelevant, because we can only know what it is potentially possible for us to know. We can, of course, invoke all manner of beliefs, ie statements based on no form of detectability/experienceability, but generally this is known as religion (or philosophy).
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 10, 2013 @ 22:30 GMT
Let me try to analyze the question "Why?"
When we ask "why?" we expect one of two answers:
(1) a causal explanation: "Why it rained? It rained because so and so"
(2) a logical proof: "Why is 2+2=4? Because if you have those arithmetic and logical axioms, I can produce a chain of reasoning proving it."
Now on "Why Does the World Exist?"
The causal explanation works if there is a creator for the ontology. Now the creator can come in many shapes: could be God for our universe or could be a computer programmer writing a SimCity3000 computer simulation. If the world is self contained (there is nothing outside "the universe" acting as a first cause, the answer cannot be causal.
Is there a logical proof/answer for ""Why Does the World Exist?" It there is one, then we can write the instructions/equations on a piece of paper, command: "fly" and a new universe will be born. But by Godel theorem it would be a boring universe incapable of infinite complexity.
So a proper mathematical answer is impossible. The only thing we can do is to state: "because it can exist" which is a restatement of the obvious. A much more interesting question is "How can the universe be?" More interesting because this does have a proper mathematical answer.
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 10, 2013 @ 23:57 GMT
Thanks Florin,
Let me make the argument clearer, it's very simple. It's to show that your point that "something exists because it can" is wrong.
You 'say "nothing might exist" is clearly false'. But this possibility was implied in the question we started with. That's why I said it.
The question we started with was why does anything exist at all. This implies, quite rightly, that nothing might exist. That's why there's a question to answer. I just pointed out that nothing might exist, but either way, with or without something existing, it would clearly be POSSIBLE for something to exist (because in fact something did appear, and does exist, so it's possible).
But if nothing had, then it would still have been possible for something to. Therefore either way, the fact that it CAN exist (your explanation for something existing) is irrelevant.
If you read it slowly, it should make good sense, and lead to the same conclusion.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 02:02 GMT
Hi Hello Vera,
I don't think the question implies nothing (at all) can exist. I haven't read Jim Holt's book so I can't say what he meant but from what William has written it seems like the tricky question is used to introduce and talk about other physics ideas.
It seems to me to be really asking- Why are there things of any kind, including the World? To me it might imply the question -Why is there all of the differentiation that we can observe, across and within different scales of observation ? Which is a really interesting question. That ties in with what I was saying about complexity and pattern, and also with the next FQXi large grant round, to do with the role of information in physics.
Your answer implies that it is possible to get something from nothing at all which I don't consider possible- unless its an error of judgement, an assumption arising from use of an incomplete model of reality, or an illusion.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 05:31 GMT
Hello Vera
As Florin has re-explained, his point about “because it can” is that the question is pointless. Because we can never know. And as he then points out, the proper question is, how can what is, exist. And the question was not “why does anything exist at all”, anyway.
There is every possibility, it might be that the ‘universe’ is ‘actually’ a shoot-em-up game played by giants. But these possibilities are irrelevant, because we cannot know them. We are trapped in an existentially closed system. So existence, for us, is what is potentially detectable (which includes properly formulated hypothesis, ie directly and indirectly detectable) and what caused that. The question is, what physical process underpins that awareness of existence (not how is it then processed), and how can that occur. Physics is addressing existence as is knowable to us, not what we might believe it to be.
And, just for the record, it must be existential sequence. That is, there is only one definitive physically existent state of whatever comprises it, at a time. The predecessor must cease for the successor to occur. That is the only way in which existence, as knowable to us, can occur. Because it involves alteration, and in order to be both existent and alter, it cannot involve any form of change or indefiniteness (which should not be confused with our inability to detect every detail of any given physically existent state). Alteration is the difference identified by comparison of different physical realities. For example, as the bush grows/changes colour/loses leaves, only one physically existent state of it is in existence at any given time.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Roger wrote on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 04:17 GMT
Hi. I've got a couple of comments on the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
1. My view is that the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is answerable. The conclusion I've come to is that "something" and "nothing" are just two different words or ways of looking at the same underlying thing: what we've traditionally thought of as the "absolute...
view entire post
Hi. I've got a couple of comments on the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
1. My view is that the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is answerable. The conclusion I've come to is that "something" and "nothing" are just two different words or ways of looking at the same underlying thing: what we've traditionally thought of as the "absolute lack-of-all", or "non-existence". That is, the universe, or "something", must exist because even if there were what we've always considered "nothing at all", this "nothingness" can be thought of, from a different perspective, as being an existent state, or "something". I think that our traditional distinction between the words "something" and "nothing" is incorrect, and is based on only thinking about the supposed "absolute lack-of-all" from one perspective. A slightly less brief summary of my arguments for this are below and at my website at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite (click on 3rd link)
I also argued this idea in the Analog-Digital essay contest of a couple of years ago at:
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Granet_fqxifinal
.pdf
2. No matter what answer you believe in for this question, I think our quest for more understanding of reality comes down to realizing that at the most fundamental level, there has to be an existent state from which our universe is derived. It doesn't matter if this state is called a "mathematical truth", a "bit of information", a "physical particle", a "relationship", "something", "nothing", etc., it's still just an existent state. What we need to do to make progress in physics, IMHO, is to figure out the properties of a generic existent state and how these can be used to build a universe. This is what I try to do in my own personal thinking via a process I call "philosophical engineering" (applying logical "engineering" or "mechanical" ideas to manipulate what were previously considered to be only abstract objects).
Thank you for listening! More detail on my "something" and "nothing" are one and the same argument is below.
Roger
From the abstract of a paper I wrote at my website on the questions "Why do things exist?" and "Why is there something rather than nothing?":
In this paper, I propose solutions to the questions "Why do things exist?" and "Why is there something rather than nothing?" In regard to the first question, "Why do things exist?", it is argued that a thing exists if it is a grouping, or collection. A grouping is some relationship saying, or defining, what is contained within. Such a definition or grouping is equivalent to an edge, boundary, or enclosing surface defining what is contained within and giving "substance" and existence to the thing. An example of a grouping, and thus an existent state, is a set. Without a relationship defining what elements are contained within a set, the set would not exist. This relationship, or grouping is shown by the curly braces, or edge, around the elements of the set, and is what gives existence to the set. In regard to the second question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?", "absolute nothing", or "non-existence", is first defined to
mean: no energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc.; and no minds to think about this absolute lack-of-all. This absolute lack-of-all itself, not our mind's conception of the absolute lack-of-all, is the entirety or whole amount of all that is present. This lack-of-all, in and of itself, defines the entirety of all that is present. It says exactly what's there. An entirety, or whole amount, or everything, is a relationship defining what is contained within (ie., everything) and is therefore a grouping, or edge, and, therefore, an existent state. This edge is not some separate thing; it is just the relationship, inherent in the absolute lack-of-all, defining what is contained within. Therefore, what has traditionally been thought of as "absolute lack-of-all", "nothing", or "non-existence", is, when seen from this different perspective, a grouping, and thus an existent state or "something". Said yet another way, "non-existence" can appear
as either "nothing" or "something" depending on how the observer thinks about it. Another argument is then presented that reaches this same conclusion. Finally, this reasoning is used to form a primitive, causal set- or cellular automaton-like model of the universe via what I refer to as "philosophical engineering".
Additional non-abstract note: One mistake that both academic and non-academic philosophers make in this area is to confuse the mind's conception of non-existence with non-existence itself, in which neither the mind nor anything else is present. Because our minds exist, our mind's conception of non-existence is dependent on existence; that is, we must define non-existence as the lack of existence. But, non-existence itself, and not our mind's conception of non-existence, does not have this requirement; it is independent of our mind, and of existence, and of being defined as the lack of existence. Non-existence itself is on its own, and on its own, completely describes the entirety of what is there and is thus an existent state. That is, what we've always called "non-existence" really isn't non-existent at all; when thought of in this different way, one can see that it's actually an existent state and, indeed, is the most fundamental of existent
states.
Another argument that reaches the same conclusion to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing is:
1.) In regard to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?”, two choices for addressing this question are
A. "Something” has always been here.
B. "Something” has not always been here.
Choice A is possible but does not explain anything (however, it will be discussed more at the end of this section). Therefore, choice B is the only choice with any explanatory power. So, this choice will be explored to see where it leads. With choice B, if “something” has not always been here, then “nothing” must have been here before it. By “nothing”, I mean complete “non-existence” (no energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc., and no minds to consider this complete "lack-of-all"). The mind of the reader trying to visualize this would be gone as well. But, in this "absolute nothing”, there would be no mechanism present to change this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. Because we can see that “something” is here now, the only possible choice then is that “nothing” and “something” are one and the same thing. This is logically required if we go with
choice B.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 05:47 GMT
Roger,
So according to your argument an "existent" nothing needs an edge to be existent rather than "nothing at all". Like a hole then. That sounds reasonable to me. How empty is empty to qualify as an existent nothing rather than an ordinary hole or a black hole? If we get no data from the hole to know how can one decide if it's really empty rather than just seemingly empty?
Since things can fill holes, a seemingly empty nothing can become something or some things but the components of the something/s have come from elsewhere or from something that was there but not identified as present. Not creation from nothing but translocation and organisation. Which also sounds reasonable to me. The material universe is not homogeneous and could very well, it seems to me, just keep re-organizing itself. As I have said in my essay -'a universe in motion will continue in motion unless acted upon by a universe stopping force.' Its the total energy content that is eternal not any singular material configuration that is and has been the material universe.
The unwritten future, (NOT potential sensory data), is nothing at all but I don't think it can be called an existent nothing because it doesn't exist -that's why it is nothing at all. It isn't possible to interact with it or put something there. It has no place to be as well as not being.
report post as inappropriate
Roger replied on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 03:52 GMT
Georgina,
Hi. I don't think that the absolute lack-of-all needs an edge to be existent. I think it is a grouping/edge and is thus existent. That is, the absolute lack-of-all is the entirety of all that is present. That's it. There's nothing else. An entirety or whole amount is the same as a grouping defining what is contained within, and a grouping defining what is contained within is why something exists. So, I don't think of the edge as something other than the absolute lack-of-all itself; otherwise, we'd have to explain where the edge comes from.
The only type of "emptiness" that defines itself like this is the absolute lack-of-all, in which all matter, energy, space, time, laws of physics and mathematics, information, etc. is gone and all the minds to think about this are gone as well. Only then, is it true nothingness, the entirety of all that is present and, therefore, only then is it a grouping defining what is present and is thus an existent state.
But, you're right that this is similar to a hole in that, without the edge of the hole, defining what is contained inside, there would be no hole.
Thanks a lot for the feedback!
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 07:37 GMT
Roger,
thanks for trying to clarify that for me.
If an absolute lack of all is surrounded by or adjoins something that is not an absolute lack of all there is something to compare it against and absence can be identified. Without any comparison, no substance and no mind it is not possible to say with certainty that there is nothing at all, only no information from which to obtain an opinion on the matter. No information is not the same as nothing at all but it is indistinguishable.
report post as inappropriate
Roger replied on Mar. 13, 2013 @ 05:12 GMT
Hi. If there's the absolute lack-of-all, it wouldn't be surrounded by something "existing" because in the absolute lack-of-all, there is nothing that "exists" in the traditional meaning of the term. I certainly agree that no one could ever verify that the absolute lack-of-all really is the absolute lack-of-all; I'm just trying to propose that such an unverified absolute lack-of-all would meet what I consider to be the definition of an existent state.
For this whole question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?", no one can ever prove or verify their proposed solution because no one can step outside of "something"/existence to see what caused it. But, I think what we can do is to try and make some logical suggestions and then use these to try and build a model of the universe and eventually make testable predictions. That's what I'm trying to do in my own thinking. But, of course, that's a long time away. In general, I think philosophy and physics would make more progress towards a deeper understanding of reality if they took this bottom-up approach.
Thanks!
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 13, 2013 @ 06:18 GMT
Roger
“no one can ever prove or verify their proposed solution because no one can step outside of "something"/existence to see what caused it”
This argument relates to what the existence is which we are investigating, ie what we can know. And is why Florin pointed out that the question in this form is pointless.
The issue about ‘nothing’ is that we are aware of physical existence through the detection of something. Comparison of different inputs enables us to identify difference, ie distance/space between ‘things’. The question as to whether there can be nothing revolves around whether in any given physically existent state there can be spatial positions that are not ‘occupied’ by anything. And of course that does not mean something but it is constituted differently, it means there is absolutely nothing there. I do not know whether physical existence can occur with this, but it is a viable proposition, until proven otherwise. And proving ‘nothing’ will be difficult!
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 13, 2013 @ 06:25 GMT
Hi Roger,
Complete absence of anything at all, as you have specified, is absolute non existence so calling it an "existent state" is confusing language. "Existential state" (to do with /relating to existence - but not necessarily existing) would work better as a label, I think.
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera replied on Mar. 13, 2013 @ 19:15 GMT
Georgina, just to clear up a misunderstanding, I didn't say that 'nothing can exist', as you said I did.
I said that nothing might have existed - what I meant was that if we're prepared to look at this question, and take it as having meaning, then we should accept, initially at least, that either nothing or something might have existed. Luckily for us it was something, but when first approaching the question, we can assume that it MIGHT have been either. By 'might' I just mean we don't know for sure that it could not have been either. So initially we can't rule either possibility out. This seems reasonable, and it justifies asking the question.
And if you look at it like that, open to the possibility that it might have been either way, you then find that either way the potential for the world to exist is there. So that potential for it to exist is irrelevant, it's not enough of a cause for the world to exist - that was my point.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 13, 2013 @ 19:54 GMT
Hello Vera,
I don't think I have misquoted you but may have thought you were implying something that was not in fact your intention.I am sorry for that. I see now that you are thinking only of hypothetical primordial alternatives.
I don't see how it follows that the absence of anything at all might become something/everything anymore than everything can become nothing at all. There is something missing in the assessment of the complete absence of anything at all if it has the potential to become everything that is.It seems to me that there had to always be something even if just some disturbance, waves or eddies, within a universal 'quark soup'
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera replied on Mar. 13, 2013 @ 20:17 GMT
Well, it's just an underlying potential. It's not that nothing can become something, it's really just that if nothing existed, something might have, and potentially could have. We know that because something did.
As Hawking said, something made the equations actually describing something that had 'gone to all the bother of existing', which he called breathing fire into the equations. This view of things (and mine is quite close to Hawking's on this), rules out the idea that something existed because it can. The point is, it can either way, so whether or not it can isn't the question.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 00:08 GMT
Hello Vera,
Stephen hawking's "Gone to all the bother" implies that there is or was some effort or difficulty involved, rather than everything falling into place as it must; Minimizing potential energy where possible, taking the path of least resistance. Natural Patterns and structures might be thought of as a balance between extremes of simplicity (which can become more complex) and extreme complexity, (which approaches simplicity again); the equilibrium that occurs in the natural flux between those extremes.
His"Breathing fire" into the equations implies that they used to be 'dead' things and needed activation whereas they might always have been active.Working back from the expansion of the observed universe makes it seem that there is a singularity origin to the material universe but the assumption that that EM image universe is the material universe is a mistake IMO.
I'm going to disagree with you. If there was nothing at all it could only be nothing at all.The alternative is not an option under that scenario. As there wouldn't be the potential for things and patterns of things in the nothingness.There has to be something there for there to be the potential for something different. It is a completely different scenario, to which, what we know to exist, because it does, does not apply.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 01:01 GMT
Georgina,
Keep in mind the conceptual parameters of the absolute and the infinite. As zero, the absolute is inherently inert, which gives the propensity for stabilization, contraction, etc. All the properties we associate with mass, gravity, structure, etc. Meanwhile infinity exerts a vacuum effect, drawing everything apart. So the "singularity" isn't some particular "point," but is the inherent nature of all points. Now consider how these two foundational properties of space both draw everything together, yet also pull everything apart. Expansion/contraction.
report post as inappropriate
Roger replied on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 03:09 GMT
Georgina and Paul,
Hi. In regard to Georgina's comment:
"Complete absence of anything at all, as you have specified, is absolute non existence so calling it an "existent state" is confusing language. "Existential state" (to do with /relating to existence - but not necessarily existing) would work better as a label, I think."
my response is that:
what I'm trying to...
view entire post
Georgina and Paul,
Hi. In regard to Georgina's comment:
"Complete absence of anything at all, as you have specified, is absolute non existence so calling it an "existent state" is confusing language. "Existential state" (to do with /relating to existence - but not necessarily existing) would work better as a label, I think."
my response is that:
what I'm trying to get at is that when we think that absolutely everything (space, time, matter, energy, volume, thoughts, etc.) is gone, that really isn't non-existence. Actually, it meets my definition of an existent state. So, our use of the term non-existence is incorrect; it's a misnomer. I'm suggesting that in addition to our usual way of thinking about the situation when it seems like everything is gone that we there's another way of considering this situation where this will appear as an existent state. This is why I put "something" and "nothing" in quotes so much to try and point out that these words may not really be correct descriptions of a situation.
On Paul's comment:
"The issue about ‘nothing’ is that we are aware of physical existence through the detection of something. Comparison of different inputs enables us to identify difference, ie distance/space between ‘things’. The question as to whether there can be nothing revolves around whether in any given physically existent state there can be spatial positions that are not ‘occupied’ by anything. And of course that does not mean something but it is constituted differently, it means there is absolutely nothing there. I do not know whether physical existence can occur with this, but it is a viable proposition, until proven otherwise. And proving ‘nothing’ will be difficult!"
my responses are:
The "nothing" I'm talking about in the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" isn't a hole in a physically existent state. My stuff is talking about the alleged "nothing" when we think that absolutely everything (space, time, matter, energy, volume, thoughts, etc.) is gone.
Also, I think it's absolutely critical to distinguish between the mind's conception of non-existence and non-existence itself, in which neither the mind nor anything else is present. Because our minds exist, our mind's conception of non-existence is dependent on existence; that is, we must define non-existence as the lack of existence. But, non-existence itself, and not our mind's conception of non-existence, does not have this requirement; it is independent of our mind, and of existence, and of being defined as the lack of existence. Non-existence itself is on its own, and on its own, completely describes the entirety of what is there and is thus an existent state.
Thanks for a good conversation!
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 05:25 GMT
Hello Vera
“I said that nothing might have existed…So initially we can't rule either possibility out”
And green giants with 6 heads playing ping pong with the universe might exist. Any possibility might exist. But this is a meaningless stance, ie the question in that context, as Florin pointed out, is pointless. We can only know what it is possible for us to know, and there is an independent physical process which underpins that. We can believe anything, but that is not the subject matter for science.
The concept of nothing existing, as in spatial positions not ‘occupied ‘ by anything, is entirely different.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 05:51 GMT
John
I understand what Georgina was saying to Roger. But I think so long as it is clear what is meant, ie it is not some metaphysical possibility (which is what Hello Vera is referring to), then referring to nothing as existent is OK. Because, if there is such a circumstance then nothing is indeed ‘existent’. That is, there are spatial positions where there is nothing, as opposed to something.
This has nothing to do with when it is gone. Neither has it, or any physics, got anything to do with the mind/sensory systems. We detect something, we cannot detect nothing. We can infer nothing by comparison of more than one something. Forget the subsequent processing, this is irrelevant. We are dependent upon independent physical input for knowledge of existence. But is perfectly feasible to prove the existence of nothing, indirectly, as it is to deduce that there is another planet next to the one that has a quirk in its orbit, but we cannot see it, directly.
Any given physically existent state can, conceptually, be ‘divided’ by a matrix of spatial positions. This is what we do when we invoke the concepts of distance, position, movement, etc. The most differentiated matrix would have a ‘mesh’ size which was the equivalent of the smallest entity which comprises physical reality.
So, the question becomes, does the way in which physical existence is constituted allow for spatial positions to be ‘unoccupied’ in any given physically existent state, or is there always something in every given spatial position available. Where something means: has physical presence.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera replied on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT
Georgina, Hawking was using language in a very different way from the literal way you took it! What you did was like translating poetry into science.
No, "gone to all the bother of existing" is not about energy, it's about how the world became something very different from the mere possibility that the equations describe, which otherwise would only be a potential for something to exist. It's just a colourful turn of phrase.
"Breathing fire into the equations" means the same thing - it ain't literal combustion! Again, it's that an existing world is something very different for the equations to describe than just a possibility, and there's still something to explain. This goes against Florin's answer to the question.
My point was that in either case the possibility is there, so the possibility isn't a cause for the world existing.
But your interpretation of Hawking's words is reminiscent of Charles Babbage's corrections to the poetry of Alfred Lord Tennyson - he said that instead of
Every minute dies a man,
Every minute one is born
it should be
Every minute dies a man,
And one and a sixteenth is born.
Babbage, in a similar way, had taken the words too literally, and put them into mathematical terms!
Paul - although he later said the question was meaningless, Florin initially set out an answer to it. My reply to what he said was affected by the fact that he chose to answer it, which implied certain things. He didn't really defend that answer, and I've had enough of arguing that it's wrong... thanks for the discussion.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 11:54 GMT
Paul,
Newton said space and time are absolutes. Einstein said that four dimensional spacetime geometry is the absolute frame. Since I argue time is an effect of action, like temperature, this means space is the absolute. When we measure time, we are measuring actions, but when we measure space, be it points in a frame, lines, area, or volume, we are measuring space. So since space has no physically malleable properties, it can't be warped, bounded, moved, stretched, etc. So this leaves it with two attributes; infinite and absolute. Infinite because it has to boundaries and absolute because it is the ultimate zero based frame. Consider the centrifugal force of spin. That is the effect of a frame rotating relative to inertia. Clocks/actions slow due to velocity, gravity, acceleration, etc. So if you were to put various clocks in different situations and eventually bring them back together, the one which ran the fastest would have been the one closest to this foundational inertial frame.
So space is the "nothing" that can be inferred.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 06:08 GMT
John
The measuring system known as timing calibrates rate of change, its reference is a conceptual constant rate, which we operationalise with synchronised timing devices. Spatial position uses the reference of a conceptual spatial matrix for calibration purposes, it is ‘located’ by being identified with any given physical entity.
You are referring to space when you mean...
view entire post
John
The measuring system known as timing calibrates rate of change, its reference is a conceptual constant rate, which we operationalise with synchronised timing devices. Spatial position uses the reference of a conceptual spatial matrix for calibration purposes, it is ‘located’ by being identified with any given physical entity.
You are referring to space when you mean relative spatial position and identified spatial difference. Or, not the somethings which are being considered. That is, this does not mean there is nothing there, just that what is being considered is not there. Space, as in what is not the somethings is another form of something, it just has a fundamentally different form. The question is, given how physical existence occurs and alters, can there be spatial positions where there is absolutely nothing. Incidentally, this could be both in the spatial positions which are extrinsic to the somethings, and within them. Any given something does not necessarily occupy every given spatial position within its boundary, until proven otherwise. I remember a statement along the lines that if the entire human population was compressed to just the ‘matter’ then it would be the size of a sugar cube. So, what occupies the spatial positions not occupied by matter, and are all spatial positions occupied by something?
We neither have infinite, nor absolute in the physical existence we can know. Because what we can know is limited, extremely vast, but limited. And it is not possible to have an absolute, because there is always the possibility of an alternative. The only absolute we have is ‘of’ and ‘not of’ what we can potentially know (ie the form of existence we can, objectively investigate).
Whether or not clocks alter their rate of change as a result of being caused to alter momentum is irrelevant. If they do, they do. And the timing system would have to factor in that proven feature. The timing reference is not any given timing device, they just tell the time. Similarly, rulers which tell the spatial difference are made to a certain level of accuracy. And where it matters, the effects of different temperatures on the measuring device are taken into account. The references for these measuring systems are conceptual, not the devices. In that sense, relative spatial position and relative rate of change are ‘absolutes’ (ie unchanging within the closed system). Whether that is the same as what Newton meant is another question.
This incorrect notion of time stems from Poincaré, and his flawed concept of simultaneity, which was then taken up by Einstein which resulted in the false concept of relativity, and then morphed into the incorrect model of physical existence known as spacetime. There is no duration within any given physical existence. Duration relates to the rate at which difference occurs, ie it is a feature of the difference between physical realities, not of them.
The real concept which underpins the idea of ‘inertial’ is not understood. Any judgement must have a reference, and any reference will suffice. All that is happening is that the reference chosen is then, conceptually, deemed to be, for example, ‘stationary’. Because what we are saying is, in this example, always x has a momentum with respect to y, but tend to leave the caveat off most of the time.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 11:42 GMT
Paul,
Say x is the space station from 2001; A Space Odyssey, in otherwise featureless space, ie. that there is no y. Can it be said to be spinning and thus exerting a gravitational effect, without any such outside reference?
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 16, 2013 @ 08:51 GMT
John
Er, how do you know there is x? That is, you have a reference, against which you can then compare relative spatial position.
Obviously, if there is just x, then there is no other reference.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 16, 2013 @ 11:46 GMT
Paul,
Than say y is one single star, many light years away; Would the centrifugal force of the spin of that space station be dependent on the existence of that star?
Or to try another model; Say there is the space station and small astroid a short distance away; How do we know it is the space station spinning and not the astroid orbiting the station? Wouldn't we be able to tell from the centrifugal force creating a gravitational effect within the station, that wouldn't exist if it was the astroid in orbit?
The point being that centrifugal force is due to spin relative to an inertial state, not points of relative measurement.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 17, 2013 @ 05:45 GMT
John
All we can know is the difference between whatever is knowable. We cannot know what state they are 'actually' in. So a reference is used,ie one of what is knowable, which in effect is deemed to be inertial, and relative comparisons identifying difference are then made.
You are saying there are two things, but in your last sentence you refer to something else. Either here are two things, which have to be compared, or there are more than two things, so the comparison can involve whatever else there is. Either way, it is still a comparison to identify difference with one being the reference. There is no mythical state which somehow appears from nowhere and provides the basis for measurement.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 17, 2013 @ 11:15 GMT
Paul,
Space is not a mythical state. The myth is that it is only a measure of points of reference. Thus we get such unicorn thinking as that space can "expand," yet still have a constant speed of light against which to compare this expansion. Centrifugal force is a very real effect of the relation of a spinnig frame to this inertial state.
Try for a moment, to conceive of a number line without a zero. You tie yourself in knots trying to eliminate the neutral/inert, so deal with it.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 19, 2013 @ 06:06 GMT
John
I did not say space is a mythical state, I was pointing out the flaw in what you said, ie you had another reference which you had not declared.
The simpe fact of the matter is, that any measurement/judgement necessitates a reference, and what is chosen as the reference, which could be anything, is thereby deemed to be 'inertial' in the context of altering relative spatial position (ie movement).
Paul
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 10:42 GMT
I haven't said what I think about these questions, I've just said why I think Florin's idea that something exists because it can is wrong. (Georgina, I didn't mean that the world necessarily appeared out of nowhere, my argument applies if it, or something, existed infinitly into the past.)
But Florin, in attempting to answer the question 'why does anything exist', implied that the question has meaning, and therefore that nothing might have existed. I've said that if you take the question as having meaning (and posting on this page suggests one might!) then you accept that in some sense it could have been either way. My argument has been that if so, then either way it could potentially exist, so the fact that it can is not a reason for the world to exist.
The question is one that Hawking asked, who disagrees with Florin in the same way that I do. He said (words similar to) 'whay does the universe go to all the bother of existing? What breathes fire into the equations?'
So he sees the equations as having the potential for existence either way, but something other than the fact that the world CAN exist makes the equations active, and actually describing something.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 12:31 GMT
Hello Vera,
I think we are simply playing with words here.
"What is the color of the eyes of the emperor of the USA?" Each word is unambiguous but the sentence does not make sense since USA is a republic.
When we ask "why does the world exist?" we also need to specify the context ( causal or axiomatic). Without context, the question is meaningless. Reading very slowly, it is still unclear what your context is. Please pick one, or fell free to introduce a third one if appropriate. What I don't want to do is have a wrong assumption. Then we can argue.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 12:34 GMT
On a separate sad note, yesterday I found out that Gerard Emch passed away on March 5, 2013
Here is the official announcement:
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/gainesville/ob
ituary.aspx?page=lifestory&pid=163577385
Professor Emch had fundamental contributions in the algebraic approach to quantum mechanics and here are two important books he wrote:
Mathematical and Conceptual Foundations of 20th-Century Physics
Algebraic Methods in Statistical Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory
Here is his mathematical genealogy entry:
http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=23461
Hi
s passing represents a great loss for the mathematical and physics community.
report post as inappropriate
Saibal Mitra wrote on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 17:21 GMT
Given what we do know from physics, it is reasonable to assume that the World is inherently mathematical of nature. So, what take to be a physical World, may fundamentally just be an abstract mathematical structure and nothing more than that. Then there is nothing needed to "blow life into the equations", as the equations themselves are all that really exist.
My argument for this goes as...
view entire post
Given what we do know from physics, it is reasonable to assume that the World is inherently mathematical of nature. So, what take to be a physical World, may fundamentally just be an abstract mathematical structure and nothing more than that. Then there is nothing needed to "blow life into the equations", as the equations themselves are all that really exist.
My argument for this goes as follows. As I'm sitting in front of my computer and typing this message, everything I feel and experience is due processes in my brain. These processes end up implementing some algorithm that processes information; the details of what is going on in my brain only matter in so far as this algorithm is executed.
If my brain were replaced by a computer that would simulate that would go on in my brain, that would give rise to my consciousness. What matters for me is if the computation is actually being performed, not how it is being performed.
This then implies that running "my program" to let me experience some virtual environment would lead me to experience that virtual world as if it were the real world. I could e.g. experience real pain, even though there is no real body that is being hurt. The fact that the precise way the computation is carried out doesn't matter, means that the computer could run the code in some scrambled way.
Now, an example of such a scrambling, is the time evolution of the World. So, even if one rejects the notion of block time, it will re-enter via the back door, because the past exists in this present moment, albeit in a scrambled way via the time evolution operator (in quantum mechanics, you need to assume the validity of the MWI to make this work).
This means that any computation of me that has ever or will ever be carried out generates my consciousness. So, even if the universe were to effectively end due to heat death, or a Big Rip or whatever, I would still find myself alive, probably discussing physics on a forum like this one, because the World that I'm right now effectively experiencing would still exist in a scrambled way in that future state.
This then calls into question the very relevance of "physical". A more natural interpretation is that the algorithm that desctibes me simply exists as a member of a mathematical multiverse that contains all algorithms. Then on this set of algorithms a natural measure should exist that makes certain algorithms more probable than others. This is, of course, someting that should be derived from first principles, not assumed. But assuming that one can do this, it should be the case that an algorihm describing me experiencing World where things don't add up is vastly more unlikely than me experiencing a World that is describable by the known laws of physics.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera replied on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 23:09 GMT
Florin,
because I haven't tried to answer the question, but have only criticised your answer to it, surely it is for you to specify a context. You're now saying that without a context, the question is meaningless, but you answered it, I didn't.
And where you say that we're just playing with words, I can't help remembering the old saying that a bad philosopher will blur the issue if he chooses to (and he feels he can always do that easily if he wants to), while a good philosopher will clarify the issue.
I've shown that Hawking's statement contradicts your answer to the question, your answer being 'because it can'. This point from Hawking is clear and specific, and not just playing with words. Please don't try to blur it, having made your statement. You haven't justified 'because it can' at all, or even tried to. And as it happens, for once I agree with Hawking.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 21:00 GMT
Hello Vera,
thank you for sharing your opinion. I don't know what Stephen Hawking's intention was but it sounds to me like he is using metaphor to convey meaning and not just for effect. I have an understanding of the word bother, one meaning can be difficulty. To overcome difficulty requires effort or energy to be applied. Breathing fire into the equations does sound like a metaphore for energizing to me and "making them come alive" . It also sounds similar to God breathing life into the clay man, to me. I will admit heat of activation came to mind too but I thought that too literal.
It would be disappointing, to me, if those phrases were nothing more than a colorful turn of phrase, to fill in a space where he has nothing informative to say. What lay people, like me, need as explanation is expression of ideas in a language that can be understood. Metaphor and simile are helpful. Its not helpful to flit between scientific precision to poetic seasoning for literary effect alone.
Perhaps Babbage appreciated the poetry of Tennyson but preferred precision. That example also reminds me of the remake of Katie Mellua's song "Nine Million Bicycles"
TED: No wrong, its 13.7 billion light years
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 23:05 GMT
We've bounced out of a sub thread, I can't stay anyway. Thanks again for the discussion. It seems clear that he uses the phrase 'why does the universe go to all the bother of existing' not to suggest required energy, but to show what a difference there is between just the blueprint (the equations, and the potential for existing) and the actual thing. He makes it clear that unlike Florin, he doesn't think one automatically leads to the other - which is, if you think about it, a very strange idea.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 23:55 GMT
Hello Vera,
I don't know how anything can be made without energy change happening or exist without being energy or containing energy? Do you?
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera replied on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 18:39 GMT
That's irrelevant for several reasons. The main one is that this is not about anything being made! It's just about the question of whether something exists or doesn't exist, which is different. The fact that if it exists it will contain energy is irrelevant, because if it doesn't it won't. 'Go to all the bother of existing' is simply a turn of phrase, about the issue of the difference between a possibility and an actuality. So was the next thing Hawking said, about breathing fire into the equations, which backs my point up. Surely you can leave that literal interpretation - even Charles Babbage was partly joking, he knew his version was a bit dry.
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera replied on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 18:53 GMT
BTW, your energy point should be used to argue against Florin's view that the blueprint automatically leads to the actuality, which I was also arguing against. So perhaps we're on the same side - with that, I wish you all the best...
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 17, 2013 @ 12:52 GMT
Hello Vera,
Sorry for the delay, I got caught in other activities. Let me read the thread activity so far and then answer you.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 17, 2013 @ 13:20 GMT
OK, that was quick.
Hello Vera, you are moving the goalposts. First I proved your assertion to be logically false, and then you said:
"You 'say "nothing might exist" is clearly false'. But this possibility was implied in the question we started with. That's why I said it."
Then I provided the 2 contexts: causal or axiomatic and invited you to pick one, or introduce a third one if you so desire. Here is where you are moving the goalposts: "it is for you to specify a context"
No it is not, I already put my cards on the table, and I shown an ambiguity inviting you to select the branch of discussion.
Ultimately, there are no first causes in nature and "because it can be" is the only answer to "Why Does the World Exist" which does not imply a first cause.
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 17, 2013 @ 15:12 GMT
I don't agree with what you say, and have no idea how you hope to back it up with rational argument, which you haven't done at all so far. You now say 'there are no first causes in nature'.
I haven't said that there are or there aren't, but how can you say that there are no first causes? Back that up. How do you know? You say:
'Ultimately, there are no first causes in nature and "because it can be" is the only answer to "Why Does the World Exist" which does not imply a first cause.'
This is simply unsupported, unsubstantiated dogmatic statement. I have been arguing against it since you fisrt said 'because it can', (including on the subthread below Georgina, 12.3, 07.37), and have made a number of good rational points arguing that 'because it can' doesn't work as an answer.
If you can make a single point arguing that it is a good answer, then I'll bother to talk with you. But you haven't so far. And now you must also back up the idea that there are no first causes in nature, which you've said is what makes 'because it can', to you, the only possible answer. Why no fist causes? How do you know?
The causal chains go back a long way, we don't know where they go. You might argue that they're infinite, some might say there's a fist cause. It looks like one or the other. You make statements as if you're certain, but you don't say why. 'Because it can' is perhaps to you enough to remove the problem of infinite causal chain or first cause, being an answer that is neither - - - but it doesn't work, as I've shown.
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 17, 2013 @ 15:21 GMT
Oh and btw, you say "I proved your assertion to be logically false" - I have no idea what your talking about - what assertion, what proof? If you make it clear then I'll answer it.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 18, 2013 @ 05:57 GMT
Hello Vera
You have not made any “good rational points”, because you continue to confuse the possibility of alternatives with what is knowable to us.
In the former, existence could be anything (including nothing), but we cannot know it, so it is not what is being investigated. Religion does that, science does not. As Florin said, a response along the lines ‘because it can’ is as good as any other, because the question in that context is pointless. There can be no answer.
In the latter, existence, as potentially knowable to us, which is what we should be investigating, has a definitive form, because it is a function of a specific and identifiable physical process. This is what we can know, either directly or via proper hypothesis. Whether it ‘really’ is what occurs is irrelevant, because we cannot know that. Then the question has meaning. Though one of the conclusions that can be drawn immediately is that it is not nothing. We, and we are part of it, definitely receive physical input, ie there is something. Or as Florin states, this is proof that your assertion is logically false.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 18, 2013 @ 10:36 GMT
Florin's points are like religion often is, not mine, and reminiscent of talking to Christians where they make dogmatic statements, and don't back them up with argument. Neither he nor you have proved anything. You've both said that the world exits 'because it can', and you say that this answer is as good as any other, because you say the quesiton is pointless. Then refrain from entering the discussion.
You think we can't get any kind of handle on these questions, so you shouldn't discuss this. Supporting Floring because you think his answer is 'as good as any other' isn't anything like enough! But In Florin's case, he thinks 'because it can' is the right answer for a very different reason - it's a dogmatic statement that is there to prop up another dogmatic statement. The other one is that he has decided there are no first causes in nature, though he doesn't say why.
He seems not to like an infinite series of causes, going back presumably though an infinite period of time, which is the only alternative to a first cause, unless one tries to jump out of causality in some other way. Saying 'because it can' is an attempt to jump out of causality, to justify what he happens to believe (like a faith), but it doesn't work because whether or not the world had existed, it can. We know that because it does.
Unless Florin makes a rational point, I won't stay in the discussion. I don't mind if I disagree with the point he makes, that would be fine. I'd just love to hear some rational argument, it's such fun.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 18, 2013 @ 19:53 GMT
Don't presume Hello Vera, there is a tyre cover on a local Ute. which reads :"If a man speaks in the forest and no woman hears him, is he still wrong? Along those lines: If there is an infinite series of causes and no immortal observer with a clock, do they still happen in an infinite period of time?
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera replied on Mar. 18, 2013 @ 22:40 GMT
I didn't say the universe goes back infinitely, though many think it might. You don't need an external clock. Time might have no beginning, this is possible from our point of view. The word 'possible' has two meanings, I don't know if it's possible in the other way of understanding the word. I just said that the causal origin seems to be either an infinite series of causes or a first cause. Seems a rather uncontroversial type of statement.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 18, 2013 @ 23:38 GMT
Hello Vera said "......going back presumably though an infinite period of time, which is the only alternative to a first cause........" Is there time when it is not measured or just re-arrangement of matter in space? Is there temperature when it is not measured or just heat?
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 19, 2013 @ 01:57 GMT
" Is there time when it is not measured or just re-arrangement of matter in space?"
Memory, or just momentum?
"Causal" implies sequence. How do we know reality is fundamentally linear? Did it really start as a singularity, or is it a fluctuating vacuum?
Is the narrative fundamental, or emergent?
Does the earth travel some fourth dimension from yesreday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates?
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera replied on Mar. 19, 2013 @ 10:42 GMT
Thanks Georgina, "Is there time when it is not measured..." Most physicists believe that there's a world out there, which exists independently of our measurements. I think that as well. For one thing, we find masses of evidence that the world has been developing from well before we were there to measure it. So it looks like it existed. (And backwards causation looks like nonsense to me.)
But secondly, the only reason some think measurement affects the existence of things is some stuff from quantum mechanics, which we so far haven't been able to interpret or understand at all. So the questions from QM are so far unanswered ones (which those with a fertile imagination often forget). They may be answered this century, but until they are, we don't have any clear reasons to think measurement is a reality-giving process, and I suspect that when they are, we still won't.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 19, 2013 @ 11:22 GMT
Vera,
Measurement is part of reality. The problem is perception is inherently subjective. Measuring postion or momentum of a particle is conceptuall the same as using different speed settings on a camera. A fast setting will freeze postion, but limit larger context, while a slower setting will give you more a sense of action, but blur detail. When you start to combine perspective of different information, you also combine the energy transmitting the information and disturb the transmission, resulting in a white noise effect.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 19, 2013 @ 11:59 GMT
Vera,
The point Georgina is making, about whether temperature is just heat, as relating to time, is not whether processes exist outside our perception, but how it exists outside our perception. You make the observation that backward causation is nonsense, but doesn't that simply reverse our linear perception of change and thus the "timing' of it, as opposed to thinking of it as non-linear. Does yesterday cause today, anymore than one rung on a ladder causes the next? The sun radiating on a rotating planet causes the sequence of events we call days. Causation is transfer of energy, not just our subjective perception of it. My typing on these keys is only a very small input into the total requirement for words to appear on this screen. Input can be coming at the speed of light from opposite directions, so there can be no full knowledge of total input into any event, prior to its occurrence, even if the laws determining the result are deterministic. We are little points moving about a sea of activity and we give more credence to this linearity than it has in reality. Time is not so much one big narrative, but a tapestry of interlocking activity. Thermodynamics is conceptually as or more important to how reality functions, than time.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina parry replied on Mar. 19, 2013 @ 20:32 GMT
Hello Vera,
I think there is a world out there too, even when I'm not looking but its not things in space-time but things in space and electromagnetic potential data in space from which two different ideas about time emerge.Changes in configuration of matter in space giving passage of time and distribution of electromagnetic data in space giving space-time. When you consider a sequence of causes and you presume they occur in an infinite period of time how are you imagining that? Occurring in an infinitely large block time universe, or in infinite imagined but non existing time? Both or neither?
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera replied on Mar. 20, 2013 @ 01:28 GMT
The idea that time might go back infinitely doesn't necessarily need to specify how time works, which we don't yet know. In the context I used it in it certainly doesn't, which was just to say that if we take causality to be real (and it's hard to do anything else), then the world seems to started either from a first cause, or an infinite series of causes. The latter would probably involve infinite time as well. This is very general stuff, but it's interesting, and it's fun to think about, because both possibilities have real difficulties attached to them, and yet it seems likely that one of them is true.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 20, 2013 @ 21:07 GMT
Why mention that -time- presumption at all when not knowing what it really means. I'm really glad the turn of phrase "time itself"was not invoked.
Looking back over an imagined sequence of events is picking out a story from many, many variables and parameters that have played their part in the 'final' consequence. The cause is like the roots of a tree rather than a thread though. Also, the roots are embedded in the soil, so any change at all could lead to a different outcome. The whole material universe is the cause of everything that is. That might seem far fetched but gamma rays from a supernova, or an asteroid impact, or galaxy collision could have drastically altered the World and it would not be as we know it. All of the things that have happened and are happening make it what it is.
Also re. Causality, the sequence of arrangements that is happening may well be different from the sequence later observed. There is a difference therefore between; real causality, (that causality front where the whole [Object-]Universal material sequence is continually being altered), and the potential sensory data within the environment (that can be received in different orders giving different apparent [Image-]causality). Addressing Hello Vera's point Quote: "which was just to say that if we take causality to be real (and it's hard to do anything else)".
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 19:59 GMT
No disrespect intended Hello Vera, just looking for the same precision in your own arguments as you expect from others.
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera replied on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 20:43 GMT
It's true that causality can be questioned, and some are even trying to make it emergent. But as I said, it's hard to question it, and that doesn't really affect my point anyway. If we take it as having meaning (even with a different sequence), then you still get what looks like either a first cause or an infinite series of causes. (Paul seems certain that to reason thus far is impossible, because we live in a 'closed system', but he gives no valid justification for that belief. I can't be bothered to discuss it with him). It seems to me that as we learn more about time and other things in the future, we may get more of a handle on which if these two alternatives is likely, and that is certainly interesting.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 23, 2013 @ 03:21 GMT
Another possibility is that the material universe, rather than the electromagnetic image of the universe, is not so much a thing with a beginning in time or no discernible beginning in time but a cyclic process, with a beginning state and end state that are similar and the cycle proceeds eternally. Then one might choose to identify a starting point or other point in the process, or consider the whole process as infinite, eternal. Though both descriptions relate to the same reality. Rather like contemplating a circle or sphere.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Mar. 24, 2013 @ 21:25 GMT
John,
Not quite sure what you meant by "memory, or just momentum?". The output of EM data processing has a time dimension, it is a space-time output. However if there is no observer it is just co existing EM variations in the environment, it seems to me.Or I might say there is a manufacturing of space-time data that is correlated with passage of time but is not the same as passage of time
The EM potential sensory data in the environment might be thought of as a kind of cosmic memory. Without an observer though there is no temporal order to the data (which is given by the sequence in which the data is processed into the output) or alternatively one might say every order in which the data might be intercepted and processed is equally valid. However when the data is processed it becomes present experience.
The "past" event becomes the "pre written future" EM data, becomes the present experience, becomes the -past- memory.That can't happen without an observer of some kind. Organism, device or sensitive material.I feel like saying that is not even space-time "out there" but space containing an EM data field, a universal data pool.So no time "out there".
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 24, 2013 @ 21:26 GMT
That Anonymous was me, Georgina.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 24, 2013 @ 22:26 GMT
Georgina,
As information is carried by energy and the energy has a finite amount of capacity, it can only transmit the information contained by its "momentum." There is no history, no memory of all the information it may have transmitted throughout eternity. As per the uncertainty principle, by using some amount of force to measure/extract some information, you erase other information.
This goes to the point of math/information being emergent from the physical, not some platonic basis for it.
Now I did use "momentum" figuratively, though much of the potential energy of mass is atomic momentum.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 24, 2013 @ 23:23 GMT
John ,thank you for clarifying what you meant. I agree it is unlikely that there is infinite, eternal storage of EM information.(I'm thinking of a uni-temporal material universe not a block time one.) It must eventually loose the intensity necessary for distinct detection and become part of the background. Which puts us at odds with mainstream thought again.
Thinking about Olber's paradox that might also help explain why the night sky is not lit by infinite starlight. We can not see the light that is shining right now and the light signals travelling towards us have a finite life time,loosing intensity, as well as our moving away from the source of most so they can become red shifted beyond our ability to detect before reaching us.
Also the image seen is a representation fabricated from the data received. Data with insufficient intensity, or frequency outside of the range of the detectors, will not give an output and blackness, apparent nothingness, will be seen , even if some data was collected -because it did not make it through to output. If the threshold for signaling of our photo-receptor cells was lower and the frequency range wider then we might detect more stars or the whole image would be of lower quality because of the additional "noise" such sensitive receptors would allow through.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 25, 2013 @ 02:19 GMT
Olber's paradox need not be evidence in favour of a young Universe but evidence only of a relatively young Image universe, which is fabricated within a uni-temporal (in which everything that is existing existing at the same time) material (Object-)universe with eternal imaginary time line.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 25, 2013 @ 02:40 GMT
Georgina,
Exactly. How would that external storage/fourth dimension exist? Think how much events, from eating your cake, to war, are the very act of destroying information. Then consider what information is; The static storage of detail. Think mass, structure, design, etc. If it is constantly changing, it is destroying information. So there is a real dichotomy there, between the inherent dynamic of energy and the static structure of information. The more information/structure you create, the more energy must be immobilized. So to store information means stabilizing energy and eventually it becomes unstable, releasing all that energy. So creating information/structure incurs legacy costs to the entity doing it and eventually it breaks down. Whether it is stars accumulating gases until they ignite, or human institutions building bureaucracies. It's all one more wave pattern of building up and breaking down. Think just how inherently contradictory the notion of blocktime is to this process. All blocktime is, is an abstraction of very simple, one track narrative, as a reductionist way to reconcile variable clock rates.
I think the cosmic background radiation is the solution to Olber's paradox. If that light is ultimately redshifted by having to expand to fill ever more space and is not just little bullets of light traveling billions of lightyears, then the black body radiation ascribed to the Big Bang is the light of galaxies over the horizon line of being redshifted off the visible spectrum and those patterns in that radiation are the shadows of those distant galaxies. With the various telescopes, ALMA, James Webb, Planck, the anomalies are going to add up and the patches will start looking ever more far fetched. Not that people won't take them seriously; Heck multiverses are taken seriously!!!!! Eventually though, that febrile pile of duct tape, glue and plaster will eventually implode and the intellectual energy released to be worth it all.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 25, 2013 @ 05:18 GMT
Hello Vera
“(Paul seems certain that to reason thus far is impossible, because we live in a 'closed system', but he gives no valid justification for that belief. I can't be bothered to discuss it with him)”.
Most times I state this fact, I usually add at least another sentence. And certainly the explanation has been posted in my responses to you.
We are part of...
view entire post
Hello Vera
“(Paul seems certain that to reason thus far is impossible, because we live in a 'closed system', but he gives no valid justification for that belief. I can't be bothered to discuss it with him)”.
Most times I state this fact, I usually add at least another sentence. And certainly the explanation has been posted in my responses to you.
We are part of existence. Therefore, we cannot externalise ourselves from it and judge it from another reference. There is always the possibility of an alternative, but as we cannot know that, it is irrelevant. We can only investigate what is potentially knowable. Which must therefore be assumed to be one particular form of existence, whether it is or not we can never know. But the corollary this is that we have a definitive form, ie an objective basis. And that is the function of a discernable independent physical process. It is not an abstract concept, neither is it what physicists want it to be in order that it suits their theory. We have the basis of what is ‘of’ the existentially closed system, and therefore, what is ‘not of’ it. Obviously, not everything is directly available to us, so we can hypothesise within the rules of detection. That is, given an identifiable issue, we can establish what we could have detected had that issue not been present, ie indirect, as opposed to direct, valid experience. Which is not the same as invoking beliefs based on no experienceability.
To put this in other language:
Every statement has the same logical form, ie a comparison to establish difference, which necessitates a reference. But, an absolute extrinsic reference is never available, because that can only ever be the possibility of an alternative, ie if it ‘is’, then by definition it is not extrinsic. That is, given A (where A is ‘is’), there is always the logical possibility of not-A, however, this cannot be defined from within A, as a reference from within not-A is required for that. So all that can be defined is A, from within A, and that that is not not-A. But not what not-A is.
The corollary of this is that ‘is’ (ie A) must be definitive in itself (ie a closed system), and therefore possible to define, albeit only from within. That is so because there is an absolute reference, which is ‘of ’, or ‘not of’, ie the only absolute reference there can be is the factor which determines inclusivity. In the context of existence the absolute reference is detectability (either actual or properly hypothesised), because we can only be aware of existence in this form.
Now that I have repeated the justification for what is a fact, and not a belief as you assert, perhaps you could be bothered to discuss it. As I have stated several times, and Florin explained with his use of the word context, you are confusing possibilities with what we can know, and are investigating (or supposed to be, significant areas of physics are actually just philosophy).
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Mar. 25, 2013 @ 15:47 GMT
Not the least of the dangers of confusing philosophy with science, is conflating calculation with physicality. It leads to such delusions as that computer programs can "prove" Bell's theorem, and to the related belief that physics is axiomatizable, like arithmetic (Hilbert's sixth problem).
Only an independence of theoretical language and experimental result preserves objective knowledge. If the day were to come that we think science can be done inductively, we would revert to Aristotle's way of doing science, as a branch of philosophy. Nonsense. I agree with Petkov -- Science doesn't go backward.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 25, 2013 @ 18:08 GMT
Tom,
Objective knowledge is an assumption. Math is reductionist absraction and since all that is superflous to the calculation is left out, the consequence is that one is biased toward what is included.
Knowledge is limited to what one knows, so how can that be considered even remotely objective?
To assume there exists "objective knowledge" isn't philosophy, but theology. Only a supreme being would be capable of true objectivity.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 25, 2013 @ 18:18 GMT
Tom,
I take all that back. Shooting off at the mouth.
How would you define inductive reasoning vs. inductive reasoning?
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 26, 2013 @ 05:25 GMT
John
“Knowledge is limited to what one knows”
No it is not. Knowledge is limited to what sentient organisms can potentially know. And knowing is the function of an independent physical process. So within that existential circumstance, there is objectivity. Whether what we establish it as being is ‘really’complete rubbish, is irrelevant, because we can never know.
Just precisely how do you think sentient organisms end up knowing anything? Answer, because they receive physical input. Receive, not create. They then process this, which is irrelevant to the physics of the circumstance, because that processing is subsequent to existence.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 26, 2013 @ 11:47 GMT
Paul,
I'm not sure we are applying the same meaning to the word "objective." To quote you:
"Therefore, we cannot externalise ourselves from it and judge it from another reference. There is always the possibility of an alternative, but as we cannot know that, it is irrelevant. We can only investigate what is potentially knowable. Which must therefore be assumed to be one particular form of existence, whether it is or not we can never know."
My understanding of the term "objective" is to have that external view, in which all relevant information is able to be known and from all potential perspective. If there is information of which we are not aware, then our outlook is necessarily biased in favor of what we do know. "Subjective" doesn't mean imaginary or fictional, only that it is subject to a particular set of information.
How would you otherwise describe "subjective?"
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Mar. 26, 2013 @ 13:00 GMT
John,
Let's not speak in terms of inductive vs. deductive reasoning -- rather, of the difference between inductive and deductive systems of logic.
This may seem to be nitpicking; however, the latter refer speicifcally to formalized linguistics and analytical methods that sharply constrain how logical judgments are made.
Briefly, inductive judgments are never closed. That is,...
view entire post
John,
Let's not speak in terms of inductive vs. deductive reasoning -- rather, of the difference between inductive and deductive systems of logic.
This may seem to be nitpicking; however, the latter refer speicifcally to formalized linguistics and analytical methods that sharply constrain how logical judgments are made.
Briefly, inductive judgments are never closed. That is, one reaches a conclusion based on raw data. For example, in a famous skeptical argument by the English philosopher David Hume, we confront the question of whether one can conclude that because the sun has been observed to rise n days in a row, that we can expect it to rise on day n + 1. If that sounds silly, it's only because many philosophers and people at large are used to basing their judgments on personal expectations supported by data alone.
Where the philosophy of science is concerned, however, Karl Popper was one of the few who took Hume's skeptical argument seriously -- realizing that objective knowledge is impossible, unless closed logical judgments are possible. That is why he -- and modern science conventionally -- puts theory in the primary role of a closed logical judgment. That doesn't mean that data are unimportant; it means that only theory can give meaning to data -- the skeptical problem remains forever an open judgment -- the sun rises and sets until it doesn't, and we don't try to avoid our skepticism that no amount of data is sufficient for a conclusion.
That's the simple version.
Where the issue becomes ever more complicated, is in the intersection of mathematical induction with computational methods that risk blurring the line between axiomatics, and philosophical induction. (I contributed a paper to the Karl Popper Centenary conference in 2002 dealing with this issue: "When science becomes mathematics: a new demarcation problem.")
Mathematical induction is not the same as philosophical induction. The axiom of induction (from the arithmetic axioms of Dedekind and Peano: "If a set S of numbers contains zero and also the successor of every number in S, then every number is in S" ~ Weisstein/Wolfram) which by the way answers your question to me of how a line gets to contain an infinity of points -- lets us compute functions without contradiction, yet does not tell us what a function is.
It's easy to be enthralled with computer code, without stopping to think about and assess the meaning of computation, computability and computable functions -- the issues that separate mathematicians and computer scientists from programmers. This is also the subtlety that lies at the heart of such controversies as those involving Joy Christian's framework of continuous measurement functions versus computer-simulable models -- and computer climate change models of infinitely adjustable variables (parameters), even while we know that climate change is also subject to continuous functions and feedback.
Tom
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Mar. 26, 2013 @ 14:13 GMT
Tom,
I think it is an overstatement, to say that Karl Popper, and science, "puts theory in the primary role of a closed logical judgment. That doesn't mean that data are unimportant; it means that only theory can give meaning to data"
While it is true that only theory can give meaning to physical data, it is also true that only data can give meaning to a physical theory.
Popper stated, following Hume, that the "starting point" is an observable: "regularities" and "repetitions".
More specifically, he stated that:
"I proposed to explain repetition-for-us as the result of our propensity to expect regularities and to search for them...Without waiting, passively, for repetitions to impress or impose regularities upon us, we actively try to impose regularities upon the world. We try to discover similarities in it, and to interpret it in terms of laws invented by us... But in fact the belief that we can start with pure observations alone, without anything in the nature of a theory, is absurd."
Note the word "alone", in the last sentence.
If we *at first* had consistently failed to observe *any* regularities, then we would not bother to theorize about their nature.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Mar. 26, 2013 @ 14:57 GMT
Hi Rob,
I'd hate to get bogged down in a debate over what "meaning" means. I can only say that when I use it in this context, I mean a sine qua non expression by which an object or event is interpreted. This is not hard to parse -- a data set can stand for itself, without interpretation; an interpretation cannot stand for itself. So I agree with you that "While it is true that only theory can give meaning to physical data, it is also true that only data can give meaning to a physical theory."
I guess I should have used the more precise term "interpretation" rather than "meaning" in the first place.
As you note via Popper, all observations are theory-laden.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 26, 2013 @ 16:05 GMT
Tom,
That's pretty much as I understand it. Not to get bogged down, but it seems induction is bottom up and deduction is top down. Remember the neurological foundation the logical system is based on has been evolving for literally a billion years or more. It is an extremely evolved and complex process of experiment/conclusions/further experiment. We study our environment, develop a few rules, then test them, repeat.
The numbers, vs. line goes back to my digital, vs. analog essay,
Comparing Apples to Inches; Numbers are a series on integers, ie. digital sequence, while a line is a continuous function. You have to give the numbers implicit extension, otherwise it's only abstract/not physically real, ie. multiple of zero.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Mar. 26, 2013 @ 16:33 GMT
John,
Rob made the important point that all observations are theory laden, so it's moot whether brain mechanics work bottom up or top down. The process is probably laterally distributed, like information in a complex system, with systems operating independently and together at different time on multiple scales.
Numbers aren't physically real no matter how one treats them. I really don't understand your view.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 26, 2013 @ 19:50 GMT
Tom,
Obviously observations are theory laden! The process has been going on for eons. Pavlov's dogs drool, because "If A, Then B." If the bell, then food.
The point is our theories grow out of observation and then are reapplied to further observation. Theory makes sense of observation, but without observation, theory doesn't exist..
Numbers are an abstraction of reality, but this argument will go into the whole issue of it from bit, vs. bit from it. As to whether reality is an animation of the abstract, or the absract is a model of reality and there will likely be much future discussion of that.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 27, 2013 @ 01:13 GMT
The dogs experience the repeated sequence of bells, then food and inductively conclude the bells mean food. So the next time they hear bells, they deductively conclude food is to come.
They induce from observation a pattern, then deductively apply this pattern to similar circumstances.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 27, 2013 @ 06:48 GMT
John
“My understanding of the term "objective" is to have that external view, in which all relevant information is able to be known and from all potential perspective”
We cannot have that external view. All we can do is continue to compare within the closed system and establish a consistency of results. In other words, we can establish from within, what it is, from within. Whether it is ‘actually’ that we can never know, because we cannot get without.
Your next point just illuminates the inherent characteristic of knowledge, ie any statement should always have the caveat ‘given what is known at this time’. But this is obvious, apart from being grammatically clumsy, so we omit it. This does not make it inherently ‘subjective’, just ‘objective’ as at that point. And eventually we will reach a point where nothing has become available for a considerable time, which would then indicate that it is correct (ie objective). Albeit from within, which is the best we can do.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 27, 2013 @ 11:11 GMT
Paul,
So ants, who have likely not changed their views for hundreds of millions of years, have an objective view?
We have different understandings of the terms objective and subjective.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 18, 2013 @ 12:53 GMT
Just to clarify, Paul's argument boils down to: 'science can't look at non-existence, so Hello Vera's "either way it can" argument is disqualified'. But this also would disqualify several other things - firstly, the original question, which encompasses the possibility of non-existence, and secondly, it disqualifies Paul from the discussion, because he thinks the original question isn't valid.
Florin and I, hoewever, though we may have our differences, are doing philosophy, which has a wider remit than science in some areas, and we both feel that it is possible to ask such a question, and look at it, and so imply the possibility of either existence or non-existence.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 19, 2013 @ 06:00 GMT
Hello Vera
“Paul's argument boils down to: 'science can't look at non-existence”
No it does not. This is your interpretation based on your confusion as to what form of existence we must be investigating.
In science, the objective is to explain the physical existence we can know, not an endless stream of possibilities we can believe in. And knowing is underpinned by a definitive and identifiable independent physical process. Put another way round, the physical existence we must investigate is not an abstract concept, it is an existentially closed system.
So, we must analyse that, which is something. Within that, there is the logical possibility of ‘non-existence’. Which means spatial positions which are not ‘occupied’ by anything at a given time. Whether that can happen is, of course, a function of how physical existence occurs. And needs to be proven, which is difficult.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman wrote on Mar. 18, 2013 @ 22:28 GMT
For man to ask, "Why?" Is like throwing a rock at the stars. Because.
We want absolute bounds, but all nature gives us are limitations and horizons.
The fact is that definition is limitation and limitation is definition.
Infinity has no limits and the absolute is zero. Quit confusing the two.
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 18, 2013 @ 23:24 GMT
(May contain traces of nuts)
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 19, 2013 @ 01:48 GMT
Hello Vera,
Do you think there is an answer?
Especially for a mind primarily evolved to find food(nuts, berries and small animals) and avoid becoming a meal. Our mental process is based on the linear sequence of cause and effect, but how relevant is that to a non-linear reality?
We study all these ever more complex patterns, searching for some meaning beyond their complexity, some way in which they tie into other patterns, in some grand pattern, but what tends to get overlooked is that it is a dynamic process and these patterns are not ultimately stable. Complexity goes through cycles of growth and collapse. A basic wave pattern, the deeper meaning of which seems to be that stuff happens.
So are you looking for an ideal, or an absolute, in the answer?
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 19, 2013 @ 02:56 GMT
Hello Vera,
The purpose of choosing a context is that the arguments are different in the two cases.
Now the research program outlined in my FQXi essay http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4586 has bear the first major fruit: reconstruction of QM from first principles:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3935
This is a big deal and I am working on other very important results as well, but it is premature to disclose them at this point.
I am grateful to FQXi for the platform it provided for me to relaunch my professional physics career. I don't know how much longer I can exchange ideas at FQXi in this format because I expect to be extremely busy answering questions and challenges to "Quantum mechanics from invariance laws". I launched my own website: http://www.florinmoldoveanu.org/ and my blog http://fmoldove.blogspot.com/ in anticipation of this.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 20, 2013 @ 07:29 GMT
Florin
Shame Hello Vera has had to leave.
In respect of http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4586, the only way you, or anybody else, is going to be able to construct a TOE is by starting with, and adhering to, the implications of the form of physical existence being investigated and how that occurs, generically.
Without repeating the argument in this post, it is existential sequence. ...
view entire post
Florin
Shame Hello Vera has had to leave.
In respect of http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4586, the only way you, or anybody else, is going to be able to construct a TOE is by starting with, and adhering to, the implications of the form of physical existence being investigated and how that occurs, generically.
Without repeating the argument in this post, it is existential sequence. That is, whatever comprises the physical existence we must be analysing (ie as opposed to whatever we might want to believe in), can only exist in one physically existent state at a time, in sequence, ie the predecessor ceases so that the successor can occur. The consequences are illustrated as follows, picking up on keywords in your essay:
Incompleteness: no physically existent state is in any sense non-definitive. By definition, any physically existent state cannot involve any form of change or indefiniteness, otherwise it can neither exist, nor become the subsequent state. Our ability to identify what constituted any given physically existent state is the issue, ie it is impossible for us to do so, because of the sheer complexity and speed at which they alter. Neither does any form of sensing (ie observation) have any effect on physical existence, which occurred previously and was not even involved in the interaction known as sensing.
Relativity: there is no time differential in physical existence. At any given time, what exists is what exists. The time differential is in the different timing of the receipt of a physical representation (commonly known as light) of that existence, which is fundamentally a function of relative spatial position.
Time: time is a duration unit of the measuring system known as timing, which is calibrating the rate at which alteration occurs, irrespective of what is involved. There is no time/duration within any given physically existent state, this is an aspect of the differential between them, ie as the sequence progresses, at a rate.
Dimension: time is not the fourth dimension (see above). Indeed, there are more than 3 spatial dimensions, that just being the minimum conceptually possible. Physical existence is purely a spatial phenomenon, which alters over time, one definitive physically existent state at a time.
Mathematics is essentially no different to any other form of representational device, ie such as narrative or graphics. It is inherently more accurate in that it is not easily distorted or open to interpretation. But the point is that, as with any representational device, it must correspond with what occurs. Put simply, it is no use depicting physical existence as circles, and a given number thereof, unless this is representative of what is occurring.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 20, 2013 @ 08:00 GMT
Florin
In respect of http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3935, this may or may not impact on what you subsequently write, but you start with a mention of SR.
The problem with the underlying concept of relativity, and particularly what Einstein wrote in 1905, as opposed to SR, which he defined later as a specific (ie special) circumstance, is as follows:
Einstein stated two postulates,...
view entire post
Florin
In respect of http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3935, this may or may not impact on what you subsequently write, but you start with a mention of SR.
The problem with the underlying concept of relativity, and particularly what Einstein wrote in 1905, as opposed to SR, which he defined later as a specific (ie special) circumstance, is as follows:
Einstein stated two postulates, but did not deploy the second as stated. The first one is a statement of the blindingly obvious, ie any judgement necessitates a reference, and any reference can be chosen in order to effect comparison and identify difference. Choice of the reference cannot alter physical existence, or invalidate a properly constructed law which depicts it. In the case of movement, for example, ie altering relative spatial position. Everything is moving, it is just that the reference to calibrate it is, by being chosen as the reference, deemed to be ‘stationary’.
In respect of the second postulate, what Einstein stated it as being is irrelevant, because he had no light. He may refer to entities as ‘observers’ but there is no observational light for them to observe. Just disassociated rays of light, lightening, or whatever. All he does is invoke a conceptual constant against which to calibrate duration and distance, and effectively says, let us use light. But it is not light, just a constant.
What he did wrong was to conflate existential reality and light, which is a representation thereof, and what we receive. He did not notice the fault because of his misunderstanding of timing. Following on from Poincaré’s incorrect concept of simultaneity, he introduced an ‘extra layer’ of timing, when seeking to identify a ‘common’ time from ‘local’ times (unless in the ‘immediate proximity’). Having failed to understand that the reference for timing is a conceptual constant. That is why, within the realms of practicality, timing deices are synchronised, otherwise the measuring system is useless. Timing devices just ‘tell’ the time. The net result is that he shifted the timing differential from one end of th physical process to the other. That is, he asserted it to be a fundamental characteristic of physical existence, when actually it is the differential in time of recept of light in repect of the same existential reality, dependent on relative spatial position, ie time taken for light to travel.
In simple terms, this dichotomy of light speed and constancy does not exist.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 19, 2013 @ 09:05 GMT
This is your post from March 1st:
"Why Does the World Exist?
Easy: Because it can. Next question please."
Since then you haven't specified a context, but it is of course for you to do so if you think one is needed. You also haven't defended this answer since then (except to say without supporting the statement that there are no first causes in nature, and that therefore this must be the case), and you seem to have blurred the issue as best you can since then. But anyway, since then the spring has come here, and I must be moving on. My best wishes to all and thanks for the discussion.
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 19, 2013 @ 09:06 GMT
Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 20, 2013 @ 12:10 GMT
Paul,
I don't quite get why Hello Vera wants to quit, but that is his business. More important than WHY is HOW?
If we look around us what we observe is the incredible unity of nature and also its stability. The laws of nature do not change. They do not change regardless of how we mentally partition physical systems; they do not change over time. Then you can take this observation and look for "mathematical fixed points". Like the topological fixed point theorem, or eigenvalue problems, etc. The laws of nature (quantum mechanics, relativity) turned out to be precisely such a "fixed point". The details are rather complex, but this is the gist.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 20, 2013 @ 14:21 GMT
Florin
“More important than WHY is HOW?”
Correct. I picked this up in a post of yours. The original question is completely pointless, it poses a question to which there can be no answer, except in terms of a belief. Hence your somewhat ‘tongue in the cheek’ “because it can, next question”. The point is, given what we can potentially be aware of, what is that, and how does it occur, etc, etc.
Which brings us to “incredible unity of nature and also its stability”. How surprising!! The generic functioning of what, for us, is physical existence, is very easy to identify. How that manifests in practice is complex. But it has none of the nuances that it has been attributed with in order to make certain fundamental theories ‘work’. And they get worse and worse, as each time an ‘anomaly’ shows, another ‘twist’ in the explanation is invoked. Whereas, in fact, the base assumption is wrong. All I can do, because your essay gets too complicated for me, is to raise the question as to whether you are abiding by the ‘rules’ as determined by the nature of our physical existence.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 20, 2013 @ 18:32 GMT
'More important than WHY is HOW?'
The question was why. It's well known that philosophers sometimes avoid questions they find hard to answer, but it's not normally on the page that is about that question, and where they've already answered it...
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 06:19 GMT
Hello Vera
The question why, as in why is there existence, cannot be answered. We are part of it, and therefore cannot externalise ourselves from it. We are in a closed system and have to just accept that there is 'something'. Then answer the question, what is that something and how does it occur.
The answer we arrive at may 'actually' be complete rubbish. But we can only know what it is potentially possible for us to know, ie we have to assume we are determining a particular form of existence. Wheter we are or not is irrelevant, because we can never know.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
AndyM wrote on Mar. 24, 2013 @ 03:16 GMT
The question of "Why?" is inherently philosophical as should be apparent from the debates here.
Some physicists recently entered into such a debate in NY at the Asimov Memorial Debate.
Physicists debate the many varieties of nothingnessSome excerpts:
"Holt certainly agrees that quantum field theory is the best available description of our known universe, but he thinks that Krauss's explanation is incomplete. It answers the question: why does the universe look the way it does? with another equally mysterious explanation: because quantum fields make it so. To Holt, the obvious next question is: so where do these quantum fields come from?
This line of inquiry exasperated Krauss. "The endless why? question is stupid-anyone with kids knows that. Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? The only answer is: go to bed," he said. "The real question is: how?...."
"To Krauss, the endless cycles of why? are beside the point. "Science doesn't need a first cause, religion does," said Krauss, a vocal atheist who made his distaste for both religion and philosophy known from the get-go. Krauss's evasions didn't quite ring true to Holt. "You're still in thrall to Christian metaphysics," he charged. "You see the laws of quantum field theory as divine commands. It used to be that nothing plus God equals universe. You replaced God with the laws of nature. You are insufficiently enlightened....."
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 24, 2013 @ 06:31 GMT
AndyM
Well I am pleased to hear that there are people around who still retain common sense. This failure to differentiate between a logical possibility of what existence could be, and what it is for us, and hence what it is that is being incestigated, lies at the very heart of the problems physics is encountering. I suspect there is no other academic discipline that does not have an established, proven, and agreed understanding as to what it is investigating!
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 26, 2013 @ 17:31 GMT
He hasn't understood the difference between science and philosophy. I've already said (more than once) that this is a philosophical question. Florin is a philosopher, and the discussion he backed out of was of course a philosophical one. But this man still keeps saying that science can't answer the question.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 26, 2013 @ 17:50 GMT
To the physicists, I am a philosopher (and I have been told my papers are too philosophical). To the philosopher, I am a physicists (and I've been told my papers are too mathematical)
Now the truth is I am more a physicists than philosopher. And I am actually looking for a collaboration with a mathematician working in algebraic geometry and operator algebras. If you know anybody out there interested in world class research in C* algebras, please point them out to me.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Mar. 27, 2013 @ 06:37 GMT
Hello Vera
Philosophy is a complete waste of time. By definition, there is always an alternative. It could be anything. What exactly is the point of discussing an indeterminable number of alternatives, any of which could be correct or incorrect, but we can never know, and therefore have no basis upon which to judge?
Why not expend your energy identifying what it is we can know, which has a physical basis?
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 27, 2013 @ 20:06 GMT
There are things we can work out from philosophical thinking. Needless to say, thousands of years of human thought is right, and you're wrong. I can't be bothered to explain why. But when used in tandem with science, without confusing them, it's possible to work out more (as Florin and I will agree on, if on nothing else!). I must say, your view of what things we can't know is surprisingly closely correlated with what things you obviously haven't read about. I won't discuss this any more.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed wrote on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 06:32 GMT
Hello Vera
"I can't be bothered to explain why" Shame that. I wonder why you can never be 'bothered' to discuss properly, but just make assertions? The one time you did make some attempt, in a post to someone else, was an incorrect statement as to what I was saying. But maybe this ties in with your anonymous status, which I thought Brendan had indicated was not accepatable anymore on this forum.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Hello Vera wrote on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 12:34 GMT
It's just a bit embarrasing talking to people like you. To me, the conversation never gets going, because you challenge everything I say before I say very much. So you never even find out what I think - elsewhere it's better.
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.