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 MagsJ » Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:41 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
MagsJ wrote:On the below premises.. can we get/create an object/the Universe out of nothing? all the probable scientific laws say we cannot, and do the Universal laws say likewise? what of them..? and do we even know what they wholly and truthfully are..? are they even verifiable under our current scientific knowledge-base?

:-k

As stated above Science had NEVER proven conclusively we cannot produce things out of nothing.
Science merely ASSUME 'there is something from something' or 'there is something instead of nothing'.

The quest to search for something ultimate rather than nothing is a flawed hypothesis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/201411 ... ist-at-all - an interesting read, but not really a damning hypothesis for agreement.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17829
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:27 pm

"Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing"
By John Horgan in Scientific American

Philosopher David Albert, a specialist in quantum theory, offers a more balanced assessment of Lawrence Krauss's book A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing in The New York Times Book Review. And by balanced assessment, I mean merciless smack down. Albert asks, "Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from?" Modern quantum field theories, Albert points out, "have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story."


Isn't this the basic problem here in a nutshell? No matter who or what you start with in attempts to encompass somethingness -- God, space/time, quantum mechanics -- you're stuck with explaining where that came from. But if you sweep a beginning under the rug, you're left with explaining how something can just always exist. In the other words, the only thing in the entire universe that did not come into existence out of either nothing at all or out of something that we cannot actually put into words.

Of course that means that all attempts to "smack down" the speculations of others are no less on shaky ground.

Period? Case closed? End of story? Okay, but of theirs or yours?
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: 29217
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:03 pm

iambiguous wrote:"Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing"
By John Horgan in Scientific American

Philosopher David Albert, a specialist in quantum theory, offers a more balanced assessment of Lawrence Krauss's book A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing in The New York Times Book Review. And by balanced assessment, I mean merciless smack down. Albert asks, "Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from?" Modern quantum field theories, Albert points out, "have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story."


Isn't this the basic problem here in a nutshell? No matter who or what you start with in attempts to encompass somethingness -- God, space/time, quantum mechanics -- you're stuck with explaining where that came from. But if you sweep a beginning under the rug, you're left with explaining how something can just always exist. In the other words, the only thing in the entire universe that did not come into existence out of either nothing at all or out of something that we cannot actually put into words.

Of course that means that all attempts to "smack down" the speculations of others are no less on shaky ground.

Period? Case closed? End of story? Okay, but of theirs or yours?
Horgan is unnecessarily pissy, it seems to me, but I felt like Albert kept thinking he had explained precisely what Horgan is saying he did not. There were possibilities in the nothing that lead necessarily to something. Well, possibilities are not nothing. He kept trying to get more and more abstract and vague, but there was always some kind of rules, laws, tendencies, possibilities present. I wouldn't say the issue cannot be solved, but in a popular science book - that is, intended for people who are not physicists, he failed with a number of fairly intelligent readers I know. And I see no consensus in the astrophysics community either that we solved that one.

There's a human urge to shelve files as quickly as possible under solved. Police are notoriously in a hurry with such things as many a black man can tell you.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:00 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Horgan is unnecessarily pissy, it seems to me, but I felt like Albert kept thinking he had explained precisely what Horgan is saying he did not. There were possibilities in the nothing that lead necessarily to something. Well, possibilities are not nothing. He kept trying to get more and more abstract and vague, but there was always some kind of rules, laws, tendencies, possibilities present.


Well, whenever we are less and less able to demonstrate empirically, physically, phenomenally etc., what we think is true about "somethingness" in our head, the more our only recourse is a world of words. A world of intellectual assumptions about the relationship between the something that is existence and the something that is "I" speculating about it.

And living in it.

Abstraction is less the concern here for some than with those who actually imagine that their own abstractions need be as far as we go.

And my own emphasis here is always on the existential relationship between "I" and "all there is".

And, as well, on the manner in which claiming to have "solve" something like this is rooted less in science and philosophy and more in human psychology. Being able to anchor "I" to one or another TOE.

But what that is rooted to is still...what exactly?
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: 29217
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:14 pm

"Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing"
By John Horgan in Scientific American

If you want a more satisfying exploration of The Question, check out Why Does the World Exist? by the science and philosophy writer Jim Holt, to be published this summer by W.W. Norton. Holt is neither foolish nor arrogant enough to claim that he or anyone else has answered The Question. Rather, he ponders and talks about The Question not only with physicists, notably Linde, Steven Weinberg and David Deutsch, but also with philosophers, theologians and other non-scientists. And why not? When it comes to The Question, everyone and no one is an expert, because The Question is different in kind than any other question posed by science. Ludwig Wittgenstein was trying to make this point when he wrote, in typically cryptic fashion, "Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is."


Clearly, when it comes to The Question, who really knows where science ends and philosophy begins? We don't even know if, as well, there is a demarcation here between them and theology.

What is is?

But at least the scientists go about the business of connecting their words to the world. They may propose some really wild speculations about mind-boggling relationships that most of us have no sophisticated understanding of, but they do go out into space and into our brains in order to attach these conjectures to actual "things".

They then collect and accumulate data about interactions able to be demonstrated to others. Interactions in which experiments can be conducted, predictions can be made, results can replicated.

Whereas here arguments alone are often construed to be demonstration enough. In other words, words defining and defending only other words.

Arguments that aim more to satisfy some that the explanation itself is the whole point of the pursuit. To think that you know is the equivalent of mission accomplished.

Then and only then can you anchor "I" to a far more reassuring sense of reality.

Basically, this part...

In my favorite section of Holt's book, he chats with novelist John Updike, whose work explored our yearning for spiritual as well as sexual fulfillment. Updike prided himself on keeping abreast of the latest scientific ideas, and one of his novels, Roger's Version (Random House, 1986), features characters who debate whether science can displace religion as a source of ultimate answers. Updike told Holt that he doubted whether science would ever produce a satisfying answer to The Question. Science, Updike said, "aspires, like theology used to, to explain absolutely everything. But how can you cross this enormous gulf between nothing and something?"


That elusive "spiritual" foundation. And this revolves more around the purpose of somethingness, the meaning of it.

After all, only in approaching it from this angle can "I" be anchored teleologically to final truths on this side of the grave and to immortality on the other side of it.

That "something" is said to exist barely scratches the surface here. Instead, "I" needs to be connected to a "happy ending" as well.
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: 29217
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ecmandu