(December 11, 2017 at 1:08 pm)wallym Wrote: https://www.livescience.com/28132-what-i...ebate.html

"The theoretical physicist Eva Silverstein of Stanford University suggested a highly technical nothing based on quantum field theory that involved a quantum system lacking degrees of freedom (dimensions). "The ground state of a gapped quantum system is my best answer," she said."

Do you (hammy) have an intuitive take on that?  Do you think Grandizer considered whatever the fuck she just said when forming his conclusion?

My take is that they're talking about the scientific reconceptualization of quote-unquote 'nothing'. Rather like the scientific reconceptualization of a 'splittable atom'. after they realized "Oops, this atom isn't actually an atom because it's splittable. Let's not change the name now though because then we'd have to keep constantly changing the name of what we find and that would get confusing and it would slow down scientific progress unnecessarily over something that is more of a job for the philosophers which a lot of us scientists aren't necessarily interested in." Or something to that effect.

And they're not talking about nothing. It's not possible to talk about nothing. One can only talk of 'nothing'. Nothing is by definition that which is not something and they are most definitely talking about something. If it were nothing they wouldn't even be able to talk about it, let alone discover it.

(December 11, 2017 at 1:11 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 1:08 pm)wallym Wrote: https://www.livescience.com/28132-what-i...ebate.html

"The theoretical physicist Eva Silverstein of Stanford University suggested a highly technical nothing based on quantum field theory that involved a quantum system lacking degrees of freedom (dimensions). "The ground state of a gapped quantum system is my best answer," she said."

Do you (hammy) have an intuitive take on that?  Do you think Grandizer considered whatever the fuck she just said when forming his conclusion?

My take is that they're talking about the scientific reconceptualization of quote-unquote 'nothing'.

And they're not talking about nothing. It's not possible to talk about nothing. One can only talk of 'nothing'. Nothing is by definition that which is not something and they are most definitely talking about something. If it were nothing they wouldn't even be able to talk about it, let alone discover it.

So you're saying nothing is something, so nothing can't exist?  That seems like a failure of language more than saying anything about the nature of the universe.

0 has always been a problem in math/science.

(December 11, 2017 at 1:20 pm)wallym Wrote: So you're saying nothing is something, so nothing can't exist?  That seems like a failure of language more than saying anything about the nature of the universe.

No, nothing is not something so nothing can't exist. The failure of language is on your part.

(December 11, 2017 at 1:20 pm)wallym Wrote: 0 has always been a problem in math/science.

"0" is our concept of what we call zero. That is not nothing. That is our concept of what we call zero.

I'm not saying 0 is nothing (at least not always). Only that 0 has been known to cause fits in mathematics, because our language gets in the way of accurately describing existence. We're forced into workarounds because there is a disconnect between reality and how we represent reality in words/numbers.

Zero is a 'number', but it doesn't have the same properties as all other numbers. You can't break something up into groups of 0.

Irrational numbers can't be represented in decimal form. We can see the diameter of a circle, and have no way to measure it without the little pi symbol, because pi exists in reality, but is an impossibility in terms of representing it in decimal form.

So when you say nothing can't exist. What are we talking about? If you define it, then it becomes something. It's something that probably does not exist, but still something. Even odder, is I think it does exist in our mathematics. A set of numbers greater than 6 but less than 4, for example, contains nothing, no?

And then there's deciding if the universe is infinite. I saw you trying to deal with infinity in that other thread. It's hard enough to work with as a theoretical idea, imagine what it'd be in reality. I'd also like an explanation on quantum randomness, and how that can exist.

The point being there's so much unknown and counter-intuitive and paradoxical out there, that, to me, there's a lot of hubris in the claims grandizer is making with just 'logic'. Because logic has been failing us routinely in the 'what can and can't be' department throughout human history.

(December 11, 2017 at 12:35 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 12:12 pm)Grandizer Wrote: I dont know what makes a cause a cause as opposed to preceding event. Do you? I would love to hear what you have to say about this.

That said, let me say "yes" anyway. Whats the problem?

Your first sentence undermines the entire endeavor of science. 

You articulated the problem very well to Hammy. How do you have the Dec 11 timeslice which is causally dependent on the previously ordered timeslice which is causally dependent on the previously ordered timeslice...forever? You are still postulating a past-infinite series of causes that can be ordered according to a causal principle (leaving time/temporal language out of it because it is irrelevant). This is the same logical impossibility you presented to Hammy.

No, its the not same because using the analogy of counting from infinity to an integer (or tracing the line from infinity to an integer) no longer applies to my view. It seems more like youre simply against actual infinities existing, regardless of whether all its contents eternally or already exists.

---

Hmm a lot to go through but important two weeks ahead. Ill let you guys take care of my thread in the meantime lol

---

While I'm still here, just a couple points I want to respond to:

Hammy is right about the logic of nothing not possibly existing. Zero apples is logically possible, but zero "everything" is not.

As for quantum "randomness", this is an unfortunate belief that arises from interpretations like the Copenhagen interpretation. The Many-Worlds interpretation is a logical interpretation of the quantum happenings and does not assume or imply that things are truly random. You just happen to experience one set of possibilities in this world, while in another world, a different set of possibilities are being experienced by "you". Randomness is an illusion under the MWI.

(December 11, 2017 at 4:55 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 12:35 pm)SteveII Wrote: Your first sentence undermines the entire endeavor of science. 

You articulated the problem very well to Hammy. How do you have the Dec 11 timeslice which is causally dependent on the previously ordered timeslice which is causally dependent on the previously ordered timeslice...forever? You are still postulating a past-infinite series of causes that can be ordered according to a causal principle (leaving time/temporal language out of it because it is irrelevant). This is the same logical impossibility you presented to Hammy.

No, its the not same because using the analogy of counting from infinity to an integer (or tracing the line from infinity to an integer) no longer applies to my view. It seems more like youre simply against actual infinities existing, regardless of whether all its contents eternally or already exists.

I do affirm that it is impossible to have an infinite number of anything by successive addition (including causes). However, you are positing an eternal universe AND block time and saying you think this makes the most sense because of 'philosophy'. But here's the thing: isn't positing a 'brute fact' anything but philosophy? When you say you reason from 'philosophy', I think what you really mean is that you want to avoid  a beginning or a first cause and here is the intellectual price I am willing to pay.

(December 11, 2017 at 4:55 pm)Grandizer Wrote: As for quantum "randomness", this is an unfortunate belief that arises from interpretations like the Copenhagen interpretation. The Many-Worlds interpretation is a logical interpretation of the quantum happenings and does not assume or imply that things are truly random. You just happen to experience one set of possibilities in this world, while in another world, a different set of possibilities are being experienced by "you". Randomness is an illusion under the MWI.

How is it determined which state the you in this universe experiences?

---

(December 12, 2017 at 9:47 am)SteveII Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 4:55 pm)Grandizer Wrote: No, its the not same because using the analogy of counting from infinity to an integer (or tracing the line from infinity to an integer) no longer applies to my view. It seems more like youre simply against actual infinities existing, regardless of whether all its contents eternally or already exists.

I do affirm that it is impossible to have an infinite number of anything by successive addition (including causes). However, you are positing an eternal universe AND block time and saying you think this makes the most sense because of 'philosophy'. But here's the thing: isn't positing a 'brute fact' anything but philosophy? When you say you reason from 'philosophy', I think what you really mean is that you want to avoid  a beginning or a first cause and here is the intellectual price I am willing to pay.

Some of this stuff is so fanciful, you might as well believe in a deity.

(December 12, 2017 at 9:47 am)SteveII Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 4:55 pm)Grandizer Wrote: No, its the not same because using the analogy of counting from infinity to an integer (or tracing the line from infinity to an integer) no longer applies to my view. It seems more like youre simply against actual infinities existing, regardless of whether all its contents eternally or already exists.

I do affirm that it is impossible to have an infinite number of anything by successive addition (including causes). However, you are positing an eternal universe AND block time and saying you think this makes the most sense because of 'philosophy'. But here's the thing: isn't positing a 'brute fact' anything but philosophy? When you say you reason from 'philosophy', I think what you really mean is that you want to avoid  a beginning or a first cause and here is the intellectual price I am willing to pay.

There is no successive addition happening in a "block" static frozen reality. Your concept of causality is not the same as how I look at it metaphysically. You are looking at it based on what you observe, but causality (like any change) is an illusion under the view I hold to.

I dont want existence to not have a beginning, its just very important to let logic guide my way of thinking.

---

(December 12, 2017 at 10:46 am)wallym Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 4:55 pm)Grandizer Wrote: As for quantum "randomness", this is an unfortunate belief that arises from interpretations like the Copenhagen interpretation. The Many-Worlds interpretation is a logical interpretation of the quantum happenings and does not assume or imply that things are truly random. You just happen to experience one set of possibilities in this world, while in another world, a different set of possibilities are being experienced by "you". Randomness is an illusion under the MWI.

How is it determined which state the you in this universe experiences?

Good question. I dont know. But MWI rules out true randomness, as its deterministic interpretation.

Quote:

(December 12, 2017 at 9:47 am)SteveII Wrote: I do affirm that it is impossible to have an infinite number of anything by successive addition (including causes). However, you are positing an eternal universe AND block time and saying you think this makes the most sense because of 'philosophy'. But here's the thing: isn't positing a 'brute fact' anything but philosophy? When you say you reason from 'philosophy', I think what you really mean is that you want to avoid  a beginning or a first cause and here is the intellectual price I am willing to pay.

Some of this stuff is so fanciful, you might as well believe in a deity.

This is God of the gaps thinking. That said, I have no problem with a deity thats logical so long as there us evidence or indicator of its existence.

(December 11, 2017 at 4:07 pm)wallym Wrote: So when you say nothing can't exist.  What are we talking about?  If you define it, then it becomes something.

No, because its definition is "not something".

Of course we can't know anything about the reality of nothing... because nothing is not part of reality. It would make no sense if it was.

Whatever nothing is, it isn't something. At all.

"Nothing" is a word we use to refer to a complete absence of something.

Of course the scientists are going to redefine it and equivocate (well, not necessarily equivocate . . . that seems to mostly be a Lawrence Krauss thing). That's what scientists do when they're doing their science ... because having accurate labels isn't the most important thing. Having useful labels is the most important thing. If their model helps them get the science done, then that's what matters to them. And rightfully so. They're scientists . . . not philosophers.

I am really tired of the red herring of science being brought into philosophy though. As far as I'm concerned science is completely irrelevant to this thread. When we're asking about whether existence as a whole is infinite or not . . . and when we're talking about presentism and eternalism . . . aren't we doing the philosophy of noumena rather than the science of phenomena? These aren't empirically verifiable questions about how we experience reality, they are analytical ponderings about how reality really is independent of our experience . . . right?

If this is just about science then what is there to debate? The correct answer is: Whatever the scientific consensus is.

It frustrates me when people get science and philosophy mixed up.

Sure it would be fine if we were only talking about phenomena . . . but people seem to be equivocating back and forth between noumena and phenomena without realizing it. As per fucking usual.