02 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhitehead1. What is existence.
There are two interesting concepts I would like to introduce here.
1. What is existence.
Knightmeister has implied that the existence of the past is verified by our observation of its results in the present.
a. Does this mean that if two possible pasts are indistinguishable from the outcomes, that they both existed?
b. If the information has not yet ...[text shortened]... is expanding it is therefore finite? Is it something that has been proven or just an assumption?
Knightmeister has implied that the existence of the past is verified by our observation of its results in the present.
a. Does this mean that if two possible pasts are indistinguishable from the outcomes, that they both existed?
b. If the information has not yet reached us (for example an even on the sun will only reach us 6 minutes later) does it exist yet? The concept of entanglement implies that particles do not exist or at least do not have a definite position until they interact with something else.
Isn't this a rather ego centric version of existence ? Everything you say about past , present and existence is in relation to your present. You are talking as if your NOW is more relevant to the universe than Columbus's NOW. Things can only exist in your NOW and nobody else's??? However , they are both equally NOW (unless you think yourself to be in a more privileged position in time than Columbus.) Einstein pointed out that time is relative , so from Columbus's relative position you don't even exist!
I don't believe that time is a "thing" like you do. I think there is matter /energy/ and motion. The illusion of time is in your head as a dimensional concept.
02 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe concept of entanglement implies that particles do not exist or at least do not have a definite position until they interact with something else.WHITEHEAD
There are two interesting concepts I would like to introduce here.
1. What is existence.
Knightmeister has implied that the existence of the past is verified by our observation of its results in the present.
a. Does this mean that if two possible pasts are indistinguishable from the outcomes, that they both existed?
b. If the information has not yet ...[text shortened]... is expanding it is therefore finite? Is it something that has been proven or just an assumption?
You have been ruthless in your pursuit of picking my language apart, now it's my turn. It's only fair.
The phrase "until they react with something else" because it implies that they need to exist in order to interact with something. How can something interact with something else unless both things exist? But you seem to suggest that they need to interact in order to exist?
The phrase "do not exist or at least do not have a definite position" is a philosophical fudge. Either something exists or it doesn't , having an indefinite position doesn't mean something doesn't exist. This explains to me how you refute the idea of either something existing or not existing by placing a fudged cigarette paper between the two and pretending there is something that both exists/non exists at the same time. But noticeably you can't quite bring yourself to say they do not exist until they interact with something because you recognise it for the non-sense that would be. You have to include the aside "at least do not have a definite position"
What you do is to try and sneakily bring this idea of non existent particles by the back door by throwing it in ad hoc for effect. If the particles don't exist then say so and follow the logic through. If they do then say so , but don't hint that they might not exist but pull back from it , this is disingenuous wordplay. Trying to suggest something by semantic association but not really stating it honestly. It reminds me of how physicists come out with this pseudo/quasi mystical idea of particles appearing out of "nothing" in a vaccuum when it has been shown that a true vaccuum of nothing can't really exist philosophically or physically. It's all based on woolly logic about what nothing really means.
This is fine if you don't want to get ruthless with your logic and bandy about woolly terms , but I've seen through it. Something that doesn't have a definite position is still something and something exists. You reach a fork in the road and then you try and plough through between them because you know where both of them lead.
02 Feb 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzYour argument is with whitehead in a way because he doesn't even think non -existence (nothing) is possible.
Why can't it?
You need to read the thread to know why I say this , of course , anything is possible if we through all logic away but then why not go for polar bears (this will make sense if you read the thread)? I posit that it is highly likely that non-existence would "continue" as non-existence for an infinity of nothingness because there is nothing to cause anything to happen , not even causality / time or space.
02 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo what? The universe is [may be] a random aberration within a matrix of nothingness. Sorry, the english language doesn't do justice.
Your argument is with whitehead in a way because he doesn't even think non -existence (nothing) is possible.
You need to read the thread to know why I say this , of course , anything is possible if we through all logic away but then why not go for polar bears (this will make sense if you read the thread)? I posit that it is highly likely that non- ...[text shortened]... ss because there is nothing to cause anything to happen , not even causality / time or space.
02 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhy do you call it a matrix? Why this word within? That makes it sound suspiciously like something to me. Tell you do understand what non-existent nothingness really is .
So what? The universe is [may be] a random aberration within a matrix of nothingness. Sorry, the english language doesn't do justice.
What is your logic and reasoning to dispute that nothingness is highly likely to just be nothing and "continue" being nothing ad infinitum? Even a random aberration makes no sense in this context because you've got nothing to work with to start off with. An aberration is something that departs from an expected course but there are no courses in nothingness ...there's just ...erhem....zilch. Maybe you might say that a random abberation is completely reasonless and logic-less and has no chance of any rationale or physics being applied to it but then you will forefeit any rights you did have to argue logically for your case. One might as well say that the universe sits on the back of a giant polar bear because there's no less logic to it.
S from N or just plain nothing is the breakdown of ALL logic , because for logic you need reasons and causes of some kind. This means that S from N is the mystical alternative to eternity , but I guess you wouldn't like to think of yourself as a mystic?
Anyway , where are my manners ? I haven't even welcomed you to the debate my friend . I said you be along soon enough on the early pages...and here you are..finally! Did you pop out of nothing to be here?
02 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterAh, my apologies, I have been on holiday. But onto the topic....
Why do you call it a matrix? Why this word within? That makes it sound suspiciously like something to me. Tell you do understand what non-existent nothingness really is .
What is your logic and reasoning to dispute that nothingness is highly likely to just be nothing and "continue" being nothing ad infinitum? Even a random aberration makes no sen gh on the early pages...and here you are..finally! Did you pop out of nothing to be here?
Tell you do understand what non-existent nothingness really is .
Yes, I do. It's a double negative.
As for the polar bear claim, well, that's exactly the same claim as the claim for the existence of God. The most parsimonious argument is that no (celestial) polar bear exists. The most parsimonious argument is that, if we have no evidence of existence, that something doesn't exist. We can, if we believe the evidence of our senses, prove that the universe exists, but nothing [ahem, the English language breaks down at this point] before or after. Since even time didn't exist, it is meaningless to talk about "causes" for the universe.
Your argument is advancing from the first one you postulated here, back in the mists, but you still don't understand the concept that in the absence of time, causality (which you are still stuck in) doesn't make sense.
[edit; I do agree though that true nothingness is a point at which logic breaks down. It is for this point that your something-out-of-nothing-is-impossible argument doesn't work. Your argument is based on a logic which does not, can not, under these conditions operate. Abandon the life-raft of logic all ye who enter here - although the SS Parsimony plods on unperturbed....]
02 Feb 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou really can't look to the Universe to prove nothingness. In the darkness of the universe is actially dark matter. This has been proven.
So what? The universe is [may be] a random aberration within a matrix of nothingness. Sorry, the english language doesn't do justice.
03 Feb 07
Originally posted by Chessplaya548No it isn't! Dark matter is called Dark matter because it can't be seen! The reason the universe is dark is simply because the luminosity : volume ratio is tiny!
You really can't look to the Universe to prove nothingness. In the darkness of the universe is actially dark matter. This has been proven.
03 Feb 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzYour argument is based on a logic which does not, can not, under these conditions operate.SCOTTISHNZ
Ah, my apologies, I have been on holiday. But onto the topic....
[b]Tell you do understand what non-existent nothingness really is .
Yes, I do. It's a double negative.
As for the polar bear claim, well, that's exactly the same claim as the claim for the existence of God. The most parsimonious argument is that no (celestial) ...[text shortened]... ft of logic all ye who enter here - although the SS Parsimony plods on unperturbed....][/b]
On what logic do you base this assertion? None at all?
Are you making a logical assertion about what can and cannot be logically said under these conditions ? If so I would be interested to know what logic this might be based on? Are you confessing that your position is less logical than mine? If so , great!
It couldn't be a logic located outside time and causality could it? Watch out here you might contradict yourself unwittingly. Maybe there is some logic you know of that isn't somehow implicitly rooted in 4dimensional logic????
Interestingly you refer to parsimony. I am attempting to ask questions about these conditions based on what is already known , you seem to want to depart from all logic . Thus your position is less parsimonious than mine. Since , we have never found anything as yet in existence that clearly has no explanantion or causality to it then it is parsimonious to speculate how on earth discontinuous existence might work. Discontinuity looks highly unlikely based on our observations of the universe. Continuity looks more simple and less contradictory based on what we know.
Neither you or whitey have come up with a shred of logic or evidence that challenges my assertion that "from nothing , nothing can come".
In the absence of this , it seems more parsimonious to assume continuous existence . The choices are simple if you follow parsimony and logic - either life continuously non-exists or it continuously exists. The problem is....erhem ...we are here!
03 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeister0=1+(-1) and we are in the minus part.
Your argument is based on a logic which does not, can not, under these conditions operate.SCOTTISHNZ
On what logic do you base this assertion? None at all?
Are you making a logical assertion about what can and cannot be logically said under these conditions ? If so I would be interested to know what logic this might be based on? Are you confes ...[text shortened]... e continuously non-exists or it continuously exists. The problem is....erhem ...we are here!
03 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterYour argument is based on a logic which does not, can not, under these conditions operate.SCOTTISHNZ
Your argument is based on a logic which does not, can not, under these conditions operate.SCOTTISHNZ
On what logic do you base this assertion? None at all?
Are you making a logical assertion about what can and cannot be logically said under these conditions ? If so I would be interested to know what logic this might be based on? Are you confes ...[text shortened]... e continuously non-exists or it continuously exists. The problem is....erhem ...we are here!
On what logic do you base this assertion? None at all?
Are you making a logical assertion about what can and cannot be logically said under these conditions ? If so I would be interested to know what logic this might be based on? Are you confessing that your position is less logical than mine? If so , great!
The conditions for logical inferences only exist within a time-space environment. Causality, for example, can only operate where time is in existence. In an environment where time doesn't exist, then neither does causality.
Neither you or whitey have come up with a shred of logic or evidence that challenges my assertion that "from nothing , nothing can come".
Your statement there requires a universe in which causality operates to be true. If our current understanding of physics is even anywhere near correct, those conditions did not exist before the universe came into existence, and your entire argument crumbles in on itself.
05 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou missed my point altogether. I was saying that your logic is flawed as logic when used withing this universe. If you make a false or unproven assumption and then make a 'logical' conclusion based on that assumption then your conclusion is also false or unproven.
However , you have said that my use of logic is flawed therefore you must by implication believe that some logical deductions about these things are more flawed than others.
I have no problem with 'speculating' about what may or may not exist outside of the universe or whether or not an outside is a valid concept. What I do object to is making unfounded claims about it.
Compare these statements:
1. If there was a time zero then there may have been a point when nothing existed.
2. If there was a time zero then it is a logical conclusion that there was a point when nothing existed.
1. is speculation about something we know nothing about. 2. is simply a false claim.
05 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterPlease note that I was not actually making claims in that section but merely speculating. However here is a scientific fact:
You have been ruthless in your pursuit of picking my language apart, now it's my turn. It's only fair.
A light particle (photon) leaves point A and arrives at point B. There are two possible paths it could take. If it does not interact with any other particles on its journey then it takes both paths simultaneously even if they are light years apart. If an obstruction is placed in one of the paths then it will take only one route.
How did it know when setting off what paths were available to it?
Why isn't reflecting or refracting in a mirror not counted as interacting? Is it because light is weightless and therefore leaves no trace of its passing?
You claim that time is insubstantial but energy is. I would say that time is a dimension and so are the spacial dimensions (of which at least 4 are known to exist).Keep in mind that there is a difference between measurement of time and space and the actual dimensions. You have repeatedly implied that a metre for example does not exist but that is only a measurement. Energy can similarly be measured. Do magnetic fields, electric fields and gravity exist? Why do you assign energy a greater level of existence than dimensions? You mention motion as real and yet that is merely movement of energy through dimensions.