Something Instead of Nothing

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:38 pm

Why is there something rather than nothing?
By Robert Adler
From the BBC Earth website

The universe is flat and why that's important

Inflation [theory] also gave cosmologists the measuring tool they needed to determine the underlying geometry of the universe. It turns out this is also crucial for understanding how the cosmos came from nothing.


Think about the "underlying geometry" of anything at all in this somethingness we call the universe. However flat or not flat it is, it is always perceived from within the universe itself. Everything is always in relationship to something else. And then to everything else.

It is only when we grapple with describing the "underlying geometry" of nothing at all that the mind implodes. Just to contemplate it requires being a something that can.

And even if the universe itself is construed as flat how can this "flatness" not in turn be in or on or under or over or around or next to something?

Like everything in our somethingness world always is.

Einstein's theory of general relativity tells us that the space-time we live in could take three different forms. It could be as flat as a table top. It could curve back on itself like the surface of a sphere, in which case if you travel far enough in the same direction you would end up back where you started. Alternatively, space-time could curve outward like a saddle. So which is it?


This sort of speculation is often discussed in documentaries on the Science Channel here in America. Or in a PBS/Nova doc.

I watch as they introduce all of these elaborate graphics in an attempt to illustrate the point. And all the while I'm thinking that only because something exist that allows them to do this are they actually able to do it at all.

They attempt to explain the existence of space-time as a sphere or a saddle. Or with a balloon being inflated.

But ever and always their attempt to explain something presupposes the existence of the something that they are already in.

I can't even imagine how they would go about moving beyond theories bursting at the seams with all manner of equally theoretical assumptions to arrive at nothing at all.

And yet this point itself is almost never raised by them.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30556
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:54 pm

Why is there something rather than nothing?
By Robert Adler
From the BBC Earth website

You might remember from maths class that the three angles of a triangle add up to exactly 180 degrees. Actually your teachers left out a crucial point: this is only true on a flat surface. If you draw a triangle on the surface of a balloon, its three angles will add up to more than 180 degrees. Alternatively, if you draw a triangle on a surface that curves outward like a saddle, its angles will add up to less than 180 degrees.


And isn't this "perspective" frame of mind all the more problematic when considering why something -- this something -- exists and not nothing at all?

At least with the three angles, we actually have things -- triangles, balloons, saddles -- that allow us to illustrate our point. But what of the variables on hand with respect to nothing at all? Suppose the universe/multiverse isn't flat at all? Suppose those things that we don't even know that we don't even know about it yet make anything that we possibly can know [must know] about it way, way, way beyond what we can even imagine. Possibly even beyond what the human brain is even capable of imagining.

And even here assuming some measure of autonomy.

So to find out if the universe is flat, we need to measure the angles of a really big triangle. That's where inflation comes in. It determined the average size of the warmer and cooler patches in the cosmic microwave background. Those patches were measured in 2003, and that gave astronomers a selection of triangles. As a result, we know that on the largest observable scale our universe is flat.


Only that just begs the question: What of the possible gap between what we think we know about inflation here and now and all that can possibly be known about it.

And [of course] all the while there is always something here to point to and to discuss and to figure out.

Nothing at all on the other hand...?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30556
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:23 pm

We can only ever understand that which is both observable and capable of comprehension
We must never assume that all knowledge can ever be known as that is simply not possible
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 895
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:51 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:We can only ever understand that which is both observable and capable of comprehension
We must never assume that all knowledge can ever be known as that is simply not possible


Think about what you are saying here.

On the one hand, you are asserting that "we must never assume that all knowledge can ever be known". That this is "simply not possible."

But then this particular claim of knowledge itself seems to be the exception.

In other words, this, in my view, is just another example of the objectivist frame of mind. It asserts things as "I" that "I" cannot possibly demonstrate as in fact true objectively for all of us.

And this [of course] goes back to the gap between the infinitesimal and tiny insignificance of "I" in the staggering vastness of "all there is".

It's more a psychological assessment in my view. A wanting to believe that what you think you know about this is true. That somehow your own particular "I" is able to be grounded in knowledge such as this.

Which is no less true of my own assumptions here. But in acknowledging this...how does that make me different from others?

Assuming in turn...

1] a No God world
2] some measure of human autonomy
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30556
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:22 pm

The inevitability of our extinction means that no knowledge can ever be acquired after the event in question
Even if we could attain immortality it would take longer than infinity to know everything there was to know

The totality of all human knowledge is absolutely infinitesimal in comparison to everything that we do not know and never will know
In an infinite ocean all we have accumulated is one drop of water - in an infinite desert all we have accumulated is one grain of sand
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 895
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:25 am

surreptitious75 wrote: The inevitability of our extinction means that no knowledge can ever be acquired after the event in question


Our extinction however is just another component of somethingness that we can speculate endlessly about but are not able to pin down definitively. You have to actually die first.

surreptitious75 wrote: The totality of all human knowledge is absolutely infinitesimal in comparison to everything that we do not know and never will know


This is just more of the same though -- an objectivist claim that you have absolutely no capacity to demonstrate is true.

It seems reasonable to me only because I am not able to imagine a frame of mind that might allow me to grasp everything there is to know.

That perspective is ascribed to God. And, no, here and now, I don't believe in God. But that does not mean that God does not exist. And to the extent that He does, mere mortals [after they die] either will or will not be apprised of His mysterious ways.

surreptitious75 wrote: In an infinite ocean all we have accumulated is one drop of water - in an infinite desert all we have accumulated is one grain of sand


As poetry, this may or may not make sense. But, as philosophy, it is no less just another an assertion without a shred of hard evidence to back it up.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30556
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:14 pm

Why is there something rather than nothing?
By Robert Adler
From the BBC Earth website

Everything that exists, from stars and galaxies to the light we see them by, must have sprung from somewhere. We already know that particles spring into existence at the quantum level, so we might expect the universe to contain a few odds and ends.


And yet in order to have a few odds and ends [or even lots and lots of them] the universe must first exist as something. So it would seem to be "existence" itself in need of a few odds and ends. And one particular beginning. And what could be odder than it beginning out of nothing at all?

How? Sure, maybe it revolves around this:

...it takes a huge amount of energy to make all those stars and planets. Where did the universe get all this energy? Bizarrely, it may not have had to get any. That's because every object in the universe creates gravity, pulling other objects toward it. This balances the energy needed to create the matter in the first place.


But how on earth does one wrap their head around this? How would one go about trying to actually picture it happening?

I must be missing something. Okay, every object in the universe [including you and I] creates gravity. Every object is pulling on every other object. But this part...."this balances the energy needed to create the matter in the first place"...is lost on me.

How does gravity existing in objects that exist in this somethingness universe have any relationship with energy unless the objects creating the gravity already exist?

Though I will be the first to admit I don't possess either brain power or the education to properly "think this through".

But who does?

It's a bit like an old-fashioned measuring scale. You can put a heavy weight on one side, so long as it is balanced by an equal weight on the other. In the case of the universe, the matter goes on one side of the scale, and has to be balanced by gravity.


Yeah, illustrate the text with explanations/examples like this. But this is already unfolding in the already existing somethingness. Where's the "nothing" part come into play? How is that illustrated?

Beyond worlds of words in particular.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30556
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]