B9
Bluelight Crew
^ I'd be reluctant to take that as anything like approaching a fact.
The same can be said of death - we know not.
The same can be said of death - we know not.
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe
Why is there something rather than nothing?
- Thread starter Philoscybin
- Start date
MyDoorsAreOpen
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 8,542
Oh I'll readily admit it's not proven fact in the least. Idealism is just one of the classical positions in the debate on the nature of mind. It's the side that takes mind as primal, and the external world as flowing from it. Materialism reverses this, while the various dualisms posit that mind and matter can both be said to exist, but are nonetheless fundamentally distinct from each other, one not being a product of the other, despite their interaction.
I'm just saying it brings a new and interesting perspective to this discussion, that thusfar hasn't been brought up.
Like I said first, I don't think any answer to the riddle of existence itself is in any way provable.
I'm just saying it brings a new and interesting perspective to this discussion, that thusfar hasn't been brought up.
Like I said first, I don't think any answer to the riddle of existence itself is in any way provable.
Philoscybin
Bluelighter
That is not nothingness. Nothingess must be devoid of anything physical (particles, energy, space, etc.) and of natural law. Nothingness as something (a physical system devoid of anything physical) is a contradiction.
Philoscybin
Bluelighter
I agree with MyDoorsAreOpen in that this is something to be entertained in the discussion- even though I'm a realist.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
It was already said, but there must (in terms of logical necessity, of an assumed underpinning, one could say) be an empirical 'something' from our position, the position where there exists an entity to ask why there is something rather than nothing.
From other perspectives (of the universe perceiving and often acting upon itself), it might appear that nothing 'exists' (you could have unrealized possibility, simple logical contradiction where things both are and are not, and so on). From an imaginary god's eye view, we can't really say anything intelligible, as we are stepping outside of that which underpins logical description (as it intertwines with the whole of the universe 'for us'), so in that sense, there is not simply something.
ebola
From other perspectives (of the universe perceiving and often acting upon itself), it might appear that nothing 'exists' (you could have unrealized possibility, simple logical contradiction where things both are and are not, and so on). From an imaginary god's eye view, we can't really say anything intelligible, as we are stepping outside of that which underpins logical description (as it intertwines with the whole of the universe 'for us'), so in that sense, there is not simply something.
ebola
MyDoorsAreOpen
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 8,542
ebola?, I know I'm going to sound like a broken record asking YOU this, but I'm asking it for the sake of all the fresh faced P&S noobs out there: Do you think what you just stated is the philosophical argument that the 'Tree Falling in the Woods' koan is getting at?
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
It certainly bears relation to said Koan, in that it brings up the question of how positionality, truth, and being interrelate.
But I also think that the 'point' of Koans is to lead one to embrace the mystery, to break outside of our usual logical underpinnings in order to stand the chance of transcending them, if only through mystical experience, perhaps.
ebola
But I also think that the 'point' of Koans is to lead one to embrace the mystery, to break outside of our usual logical underpinnings in order to stand the chance of transcending them, if only through mystical experience, perhaps.
ebola
love_sex_desire
Bluelighter
Quite simply, if a tree falls and no mind is there to hear it, then the tree doesn't make a sound. Sound is our minds translation of energy waves. If no mind is there to interpret the energy waves, then the tree only makes a vibration. I'd have to say the vibration is still there in the absence of a mind, al though in a state of potentiality. Does a state of potentiality equate to existence?
Philoscybin
Bluelighter
Yes. I would think in the sense that it is a physical variable it does. However, an idealist or even a determinist would only equate its existence as to whether it is an axiom of the physical where the state exhibits itself from potentiality to actuality.
You're missing my point - not that I think it's an important point to get, or that you should spend your time trying to get it, and it's my fault.
I'm not trying to attribute some physical character or relation to nothingness. I'm just using those things to help generate a sense of nothingness. The point is outside of the words.
What I described meets all of your criteria. The space between two things touching doesn't exist, so it is devoid of all things physical as well as natural law. I'm only describing it as a physical system in order to get a person into the mindset of imagining physical being. Then, the nonexistence of what is described is supposed to replace that sense of being with a sense of nothingness. That's all. It works for me.
/navarone/
Bluelighter
There cannot be a 'nothing' without a 'something'.
I'm a very dualist person, I admire the Taoist philosophy and believe that the essence of everything originates from the contrasts of opposites.
As Hegel said: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. I look at this theory as "the notion of anything comes from the contrast itself with what isn't itself.
As i wrote a long time ago: "If you live in a blue world, you woudln't know what blue is"
I'm a very dualist person, I admire the Taoist philosophy and believe that the essence of everything originates from the contrasts of opposites.
As Hegel said: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. I look at this theory as "the notion of anything comes from the contrast itself with what isn't itself.
As i wrote a long time ago: "If you live in a blue world, you woudln't know what blue is"
Philoscybin
Bluelighter
Space isn't devoid of natural law, therefore it is something. However I understand your connotation of the term nothingness, it is the same premise as Jocaxian-nothingness, yet still nonsensical circular logic.
For instance, I have a wooden cube and I use sandpaper to make it as round as possible. I continue to use finer and finer sandpaper, and make it more smooth and round. Assuming perfect circles exist in reality is circular logic (no pun intended) as there's no possible system of measurement as to detect where matter begins and ends within space. A perfect circle is just a concept.
Shakti
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
- Messages
- 728
That's just the nature of mind and its process of discrimination and disceration, not the nature of Reality as it is.
love_sex_desire
Bluelighter
I am heavily influenced by the duality of perception, and the interconnectedness of all apparent dualities, including nothing and everything. The infinitesimal and infinite are both interconnected IMO.
Nothing is infinite in it's nothingness, just as everything is infinite in its everythingness.
After reading your statement, "If you live in a blue world, you wouldn't know what blue is," I was reminded of a discussion earlier, where I was saying the exact same thing with regards to sound and blackness. You'll probably like the discussion, it's over at "The Main Psychedelic Thought Loop" thread, specifically starting with my post on page 4, post #97, sub-titled "The LSD/Psychedelic Thought Loop".
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=384793&page=4
love_sex_desire
Bluelighter
Taoist philosophy understands that this is only the nature of mind, and not the nature of Reality. That is why there is a seed of yin in the yang and a seed of yang in the yin. They are interconnected, even though our mind separates them to perceive. Beyond the yin and yang is simply the "tao", or the way. This is the unifying concept behind all polarities.
So one could argue that from a Taoist stand-point, everything and nothing are the same.
Last edited:
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
mmm...this defies how I understand the Dao...and Hegel.
This doesn't (I don't think).
ebola
But I'm not talking about space. There is no space between two objects touching. That's the whole point. It's not space. I also said silence within a continuous note. That's not physical at all, in the sense that I'm talking about, but it's still the same concept, something that doesn't exist. I could have said "the giant aardvark in your living room" and meant the same thing. It doesn't mean I think nothingness is a giant aardvark. Like I said, it was supposed to be a trick to invoke a sense of nothingness. It wasn't meant to be a description of nothingness.
/navarone/
Bluelighter
I know that what i wrote above is mostly a way to define the growth of the mind, but there are some new metaphysiscal theories that in some way state: "the language of the mind is inerconnected to the anguage of the universe"
This is being discussed and written by a man known to be the 'most intelligent living man on earth'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXksaSewCEs
I too had this feeling during a session of deep meditation and also I recall a famous quote by Kant that said: "Anything that is rational, is real"
Theese thoughts led me to a new point of view of what defines the universe.
This is being discussed and written by a man known to be the 'most intelligent living man on earth'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXksaSewCEs
I too had this feeling during a session of deep meditation and also I recall a famous quote by Kant that said: "Anything that is rational, is real"
Theese thoughts led me to a new point of view of what defines the universe.
The Jocaxian Nothingness [Nada Jocaxiano]
João Carlos Holland de Barcellos
translated by Debora Policastro
The “Jocaxian Nothingness” (JN) is the “Nothingness” that exists. It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.
In order to understand and intuit JN as an “existent nothingness”, we can mentally build it as follows: we withdraw all the matter, energy and the field they generate from the universe. Then we can withdraw dark energy and dark matter. What is left is something that is not the nonexistent. Let us continue our mental experiment and suppress elements of the universe: now, we withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. If we do not forget to withdraw anything, what is left is a JN: an existent nothingness.
JN is different from the Nothingness we generally think of. The commonly believed nothingness, which we might call “Trivial Nothingness” to distinguish it from the JN, is something from which nothing can arise, that is, the “Trivial Nothing” follows a rule: “Nothing can happen”. Thus, the “Trivial Nothingness”, the nothingness people generally think of when talking about “nothingness”, is not the simplest possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.
Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists. Such definition is dubious and contains some contradictions as: “If in the nothingness nothing exists, then, nothingness itself does not exist”. No. First, Jocax defined what it means to exist: “Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality”. Therefore, JN has been defined as something that:
1. Has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.)
2. Has no laws (mainly the law embedded in “Trivial Nothingness”).
Being so, JN could have physically existed. JN is a construction that differs from the “trivial nothingness” since it does not contain the rule “Nothing can happen”. That way, Jocax liberates his JN from semantic paradoxes like: “If it exists, then it does not exist” and claims that this nothingness is SOMETHING that could have existed. That is, JN is the simplest possible physical structure, something like the minimal state of nature. And also the natural candidate for the origin of the universe.
We must not confuse the definition of the NJ with rules to be followed. It is only the declaration of a state. If nature is in the state defined by conditions 1 and 2 above, we say it is a “Jocaxian-Nothingness”. The state of a system is something that can change, differently from the rule that must be followed by the system (otherwise it would not be a rule). For example, the state “has no physical elements”; it is a state, not a rule because, occasionally this state may change. If it was a rule it could not change (unless another rule eliminated the first one).
Being free of any elements, JN does not presume the existence of any existing thing but its own and, by the “Occam’s Razor” [2], it must be the simplest state possible of nature, therefore with no need for explanations about its origin. JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past. That is, JN would be the universe itself – defined as a set of all existing things – in its minimal state. Thus we can also say the Universe (being a JN) has always existed.
JN, as well as everything that can be understood by means of logic, must follow the tautology: “it may or may NOT happen”. This tautology – absolute logical truth – as we shall see, has also a semantic value in JN: it allows things to happen (or not).
We cannot say that events in the JN must necessarily occur. Eventually, it is possible that nothing really happens, that is, JN may continue “indefinitely” (time does not exist in a JN) without changing its initial state and with no occurrences. But there is a possibility that random phenomena can derive from this absolute nothingness. This conclusion comes logically from the analysis of a system without premises: as JN, by definition, does not have laws, it can be shaped as a logical system without premises.
We shall interrupt a little in order to open up an explanatory digression. We are dealing with two types of “Jocaxian-Nothingness”: the physical object named “JN”, which was the universe in its minimal state with the properties described above; and the theory which analyses this object, the JN-Theory. The JN-Theory, the theory about the JN-object (this text), uses logical rules to help us understand the JN-Object. But JN-object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. Nevertheless, I do not believe we will let possibilities to JN-object escape if we analyze it according to classic logic. However, we must be aware that this logical analysis (JN-Theory) could maybe limit some potentiality of JN-Object.
Within a system without premises, we cannot conclude that something cannot happen. There are no laws from which we can draw this conclusion. That is, there is no prohibition for anything to happen. If there is no prohibition for anything to happen, then, eventually, something may happen. That is, the tautological logics remain true in a system without premises: “something happens or not”. If something occasionally happens, this something must not obey rules and, therefore, would be totally random and unpredictable.
[All of this may sound really weird, and it actually is. But I can put clear evidence that JN is not an absurd: first, go search the following on a search engine on the Internet: “virtual particles” or singular “virtual particle”. Virtual particles occur in our universe as spontaneous creation from the quantum vacuum, from one particle and its anti-particle. Science considers the generation of this pair of particles an event without physical causes, something genuinely random. This is a scientific fact and can be explained by quantum mechanics. Now, let us move a bit from the facts and imagine each one of these particles contains a tiny miniature universe. That way, in this mental experience, we have a clue, a little evidence that the emergence of a universe out of nothing is so out of purpose as we could once believe…]
We call the first JN randomizations Schizo-Creations. This schizo-creations, once they come from something without laws, are totally random and, if we could watch them, they would seem completely “schizophrenic”. Of course with the first randomizations, JN is no longer the original JN as now it owns something, that is, the JN transforms. Because JN is not limited by any laws, it may eventually also generate laws, to which its elements - now itself – would have to obey.
Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does not conflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws. However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, it replaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed (until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true “natural selection” of laws, only a little set of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: “Why does the universe follow logical rules?”
Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the universe, since it is the simplest possible state nature could present: a state of such simplicity there would not be the need to explain its existence. And, by logical consequence of this state, anything could be (or not) randomized, even our physical laws and elementary particles.
João Carlos Holland de Barcellos
translated by Debora Policastro
The “Jocaxian Nothingness” (JN) is the “Nothingness” that exists. It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.
In order to understand and intuit JN as an “existent nothingness”, we can mentally build it as follows: we withdraw all the matter, energy and the field they generate from the universe. Then we can withdraw dark energy and dark matter. What is left is something that is not the nonexistent. Let us continue our mental experiment and suppress elements of the universe: now, we withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. If we do not forget to withdraw anything, what is left is a JN: an existent nothingness.
JN is different from the Nothingness we generally think of. The commonly believed nothingness, which we might call “Trivial Nothingness” to distinguish it from the JN, is something from which nothing can arise, that is, the “Trivial Nothing” follows a rule: “Nothing can happen”. Thus, the “Trivial Nothingness”, the nothingness people generally think of when talking about “nothingness”, is not the simplest possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.
Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists. Such definition is dubious and contains some contradictions as: “If in the nothingness nothing exists, then, nothingness itself does not exist”. No. First, Jocax defined what it means to exist: “Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality”. Therefore, JN has been defined as something that:
1. Has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.)
2. Has no laws (mainly the law embedded in “Trivial Nothingness”).
Being so, JN could have physically existed. JN is a construction that differs from the “trivial nothingness” since it does not contain the rule “Nothing can happen”. That way, Jocax liberates his JN from semantic paradoxes like: “If it exists, then it does not exist” and claims that this nothingness is SOMETHING that could have existed. That is, JN is the simplest possible physical structure, something like the minimal state of nature. And also the natural candidate for the origin of the universe.
We must not confuse the definition of the NJ with rules to be followed. It is only the declaration of a state. If nature is in the state defined by conditions 1 and 2 above, we say it is a “Jocaxian-Nothingness”. The state of a system is something that can change, differently from the rule that must be followed by the system (otherwise it would not be a rule). For example, the state “has no physical elements”; it is a state, not a rule because, occasionally this state may change. If it was a rule it could not change (unless another rule eliminated the first one).
Being free of any elements, JN does not presume the existence of any existing thing but its own and, by the “Occam’s Razor” [2], it must be the simplest state possible of nature, therefore with no need for explanations about its origin. JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past. That is, JN would be the universe itself – defined as a set of all existing things – in its minimal state. Thus we can also say the Universe (being a JN) has always existed.
JN, as well as everything that can be understood by means of logic, must follow the tautology: “it may or may NOT happen”. This tautology – absolute logical truth – as we shall see, has also a semantic value in JN: it allows things to happen (or not).
We cannot say that events in the JN must necessarily occur. Eventually, it is possible that nothing really happens, that is, JN may continue “indefinitely” (time does not exist in a JN) without changing its initial state and with no occurrences. But there is a possibility that random phenomena can derive from this absolute nothingness. This conclusion comes logically from the analysis of a system without premises: as JN, by definition, does not have laws, it can be shaped as a logical system without premises.
We shall interrupt a little in order to open up an explanatory digression. We are dealing with two types of “Jocaxian-Nothingness”: the physical object named “JN”, which was the universe in its minimal state with the properties described above; and the theory which analyses this object, the JN-Theory. The JN-Theory, the theory about the JN-object (this text), uses logical rules to help us understand the JN-Object. But JN-object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. Nevertheless, I do not believe we will let possibilities to JN-object escape if we analyze it according to classic logic. However, we must be aware that this logical analysis (JN-Theory) could maybe limit some potentiality of JN-Object.
Within a system without premises, we cannot conclude that something cannot happen. There are no laws from which we can draw this conclusion. That is, there is no prohibition for anything to happen. If there is no prohibition for anything to happen, then, eventually, something may happen. That is, the tautological logics remain true in a system without premises: “something happens or not”. If something occasionally happens, this something must not obey rules and, therefore, would be totally random and unpredictable.
[All of this may sound really weird, and it actually is. But I can put clear evidence that JN is not an absurd: first, go search the following on a search engine on the Internet: “virtual particles” or singular “virtual particle”. Virtual particles occur in our universe as spontaneous creation from the quantum vacuum, from one particle and its anti-particle. Science considers the generation of this pair of particles an event without physical causes, something genuinely random. This is a scientific fact and can be explained by quantum mechanics. Now, let us move a bit from the facts and imagine each one of these particles contains a tiny miniature universe. That way, in this mental experience, we have a clue, a little evidence that the emergence of a universe out of nothing is so out of purpose as we could once believe…]
We call the first JN randomizations Schizo-Creations. This schizo-creations, once they come from something without laws, are totally random and, if we could watch them, they would seem completely “schizophrenic”. Of course with the first randomizations, JN is no longer the original JN as now it owns something, that is, the JN transforms. Because JN is not limited by any laws, it may eventually also generate laws, to which its elements - now itself – would have to obey.
Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does not conflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws. However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, it replaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed (until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true “natural selection” of laws, only a little set of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: “Why does the universe follow logical rules?”
Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the universe, since it is the simplest possible state nature could present: a state of such simplicity there would not be the need to explain its existence. And, by logical consequence of this state, anything could be (or not) randomized, even our physical laws and elementary particles.