something from nothing or always something

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby iambiguous » Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:30 pm

Why there’s something rather than nothing
By Joel Achenbach at the Washington Post

Any attempt to answer the question has to be clear about the definition of “nothing.”


Still, think about that. How can any definitions that we mere mortals here on planet Earth come up with to encompass "nothing" not start with the fact that we are in a "something" going all the way back to all that we do not know about existence itself?

It would be like those in Flatland defining the third dimension in order to grasp it as we do. Defining it into existence. And the novella Flatland was a satirical account of the rigid class morality that was Victorian England. So, let's define morality into existence in order to determine which actual behaviors we choose are right or wrong.

Then the part where whatever we define "nothing" to be, it's then definitions all the way down...

It is not enough to describe a mechanism in which a baby universe might spark into being through a quantum fluctuation and then undergo expansion and inflation and increasing complexity until finally we wind up with galaxies and planets and dolphins shooting up out of a pool to grab a fish from the trainer. To my mind, that just takes the question back to an early condition that yet requires an explanation.


All the way back to, "okay, but what came before nothing at all?"

Define that into existence please.

In that scenario your “nothing” still has qualities that give rise to something. It’s not a true nothing. My version of zero has no superscripts. And if you can tell me there’s a Multiverse from which our universe bubbled forth, you’ve merely moved the fundamental problem of existence back onto a broader platform.


How about this then from Wittgenstein: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

Only we really have no idea "here and now" if the human brain itself, as but one component of a mind-numbingly vast multiverse is even capable of pinning something like that down. We don't even know whether, if it does, it was never able not to in a wholly determined Reality.

This also covers the God explanation. If God is the ultimate cause of the universe, I’ll want to know why God exists. The obvious answer is: He just does. He is. He’s what Holt calls the Supreme Brute Fact. He explains himself. And so on.


We can't leave Him out, right?

He just does. Presto! God and His "mysterious ways" account for everything.
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: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46403
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Aug 20, 2022 6:25 pm

Biggy, did you pop into existence ex nihilo? Do you deny you have parents/guardians?

The universe has a bellybutton. It’s low entropy at the beginning, and ever increasing entropy, and (by contrast) irreducible complexity wherever it is found uninitiated by human/contingent intelligence.

Obv the Creator of all bellybuttons (beginnings, singularities) is going to have no bellybutton (is going to be necessary rather than contingent, and have intelligence to spark the beginning and the nonhuman/AI irreducible complexity).

Even if there was no identifiable beginning because it began all at once complete (fractal)… that can’t happen without a mind to sustain it, especially when you factor in information exchanged between previously unentangled (physically, anyway) moments.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 23, 2022 3:06 pm

iambiguous wrote:From PN: https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... 16&t=35077

Why is there something instead of nothing?
Posted by EarthSky Voices
Lloyd Strickland
Originally published November 11, 2016, in The Conversation

Many earlier thinkers had asked why our universe is the way it is, but Leibniz went a step further, wondering why there is a universe at all. The question is a challenging one because it seems perfectly possible that there might have been nothing whatsoever – no Earth, no stars, no galaxies, no universe. Leibniz even thought that nothing would have been “simpler and easier.” If nothing whatsoever had existed then no explanation would have been needed, not that there would have been anyone around to ask for an explanation, of course, but that’s a different matter.


Oh, indeed, a very different matter. Really, try to imagine nothing existing at all. Or try to imagine something always existing. Either way you are left only with "intellectual" or "philosophical" or "metaphysical" assessments.

Leibniz thought that the fact that there is something and not nothing requires an explanation. The explanation he gave was that God wanted to create a universe – the best one possible – which makes God the simple reason that there is something rather than nothing.


And the part where God came into existence out of nothing at all...or always existed?

Of course: a leap of faith!

In the years since Leibniz’s death, his great question has continued to exercise philosophers and scientists, though in an increasingly secular age it is not surprising that many have been wary of invoking God as the answer to it.


On the other hand, that hasn't stopped some secularists among us from imagining that they themselves are...God: omniscient and able to know if existence popped into existence out of nothing or was always around.

Logically for example.




Nothing has no power to enforce itself. Thats why it doesn't exist and why there is something.
(my own resolution, seems simple but it appears Im the first one to come up with it)

Leibniz was not the worst of em but its boring how he repeats the trick of postulating "God" to replace the, or any, question. Why? Because God. See my post in the "When I say Philosophy" thread.

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5#p2882893

Why God? Because philosophy.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
The Wheel - The Tree
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Lightning

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 23, 2022 5:49 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Nothing has no power to enforce itself. Thats why it doesn't exist and why there is something.
(my own resolution, seems simple but it appears Im the first one to come up with it)


Right.

And going back to your own definitive understanding of existence itself, how would you go about demonstrating this to us? In say, one of your videos?

That's why such assessments as this are always contained in "intellectual" or "philosophical" or "metaphysical" assessments. Or, for you, astrologically?

Fixed Cross wrote:Leibniz was not the worst of em but its boring how he repeats the trick of postulating "God" to replace the, or any, question. Why? Because God.


And then, for the faithful, trust them: it's a God, the God, their God all the way down. On the backs of the turtles perhaps?

See my post in the "When I say Philosophy" thread.

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5#p2882893


Note to others:

25 words or less please.

Fixed Cross wrote:Why God? Because philosophy.


her wrote: Why philosophy? Because God.


The Christian God.

And if you want a laugh, ask her to bring the Christian God here:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of the Christian God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why the Christian God?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in the Christian God
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and the Christian God


Note to the Christian God:

Why this something...

"...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages"

...and, if not nothing, something a little more in sync with the belief that the Christian God is "loving, just and merciful".
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: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46403
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Ichthus77 » Tue Aug 23, 2022 11:07 pm

So now philosophy is taking the place of *something*?

Plato calls this the Good.

Ironically… after the big bang & stuff (so it goes)… the Good called everything good, too.

Wonder what that could possibly imply.

Wonder why stuff isn’t totally good anymore… if we even have the ability to recognize it.

You tell us, Biggy. If you don’t believe in the real Good, do you have a real Good-shaped hole? How do you even recognize it as such?
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:24 am

:lol:

No, seriously.
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: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46403
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Ichthus77 » Wed Aug 24, 2022 2:28 am

To The Corner with you, then.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:18 am

Why there’s something rather than nothing
By Joel Achenbach at the Washington Post

A secular version of [the God explanation], one that doesn’t require a supreme Creator, is how I approach the something-nothing question. Seems to me that “nothing,” for all its simplicity and symmetry and lack of arbitrariness, is nonetheless an entirely imaginary state, or condition, and we can say with confidence that it has never existed.


Right. Mere mortals on this third rock circling this hum drum star in this hum drum galaxy in what may or may not be this hum drum universe can say with confidence that our own something embedded in everything there is has always existed.

Now all we need is the Nova documentary or the YouTube video substantiating it with ample evidence. Or, as is often the case in forums like this one, a "world of words" assessment...the logic of which invariably going around and around in "metaphysical" circles.

Or, as he encompasses it:

“Nothing” is dreamed up in the world of something, in the brains of philosophers etc. on a little blue planet orbiting an ordinary yellow star in a certain spiral galaxy. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that nothing could not in theory “exist,” but seems to me that it hasn’t. We’ve never been that dialed down, folks. Just didn’t happen. We live in the something universe, either in our tidy little Big Bang universe or in a Big Bang bubble within the Multiverse, and no amount of deletion of the elements and forces of this universe would ever get us to a condition of absolutely nothing.


Okay, admittedly, this certainly seems to be the must reasonable set of assumptions to me as well. You know, for what that's worth. The existence of nothing? Then -- poof! -- the Big Bang bringing into existence everything that revolves around this:

Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles a second. That is about 6,000,000,000,000 miles a year.

The closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.75 light-years away. 28,500,000,000,000 miles.

So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach it. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.

To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years.

Or consider this:

"To get to the closest galaxy to ours, the Canis Major Dwarf, at Voyager's speed, it would take approximately 749,000,000 years to travel the distance of 25,000 light years! If we could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 25,000 years!"

The Andromeda galaxy is 2.537 million light years away.

For all practical purposes, it is beyond the imagination of mere mortals here on planet Earth to grasp just how staggeringly immense the universe is.

As for situating "I" in all of this...?


And this:

It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.


But...

Really, how can anything just always exists? Do you know anything that has? How is that not equally way, way, way beyond actually being demonstrated. We're just partial to it because something is what we are a part of now.
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: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46403
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:53 am

Why there’s something rather than nothing
By Joel Achenbach at the Washington Post

So, then, why is there something rather than nothing? There just is. The is-ness of the universe is one of its interesting features. Sorry if that isn’t satisfactory. It is because it is. Let’s move on.


This is perhaps the optimal answer. It really comes down to whether any of us here are [realistically] able to confront the gap between what they think they know as this "infinitesimally tiny speck of existence" and all that would need to be known about existence itself...and still convince themselves that the answer is within reach.

With or without God. With God the answer is already known. Without God and it almost certainly never will be. By us. Or, at any rate, not in our lifetimes.

For example, Frank Drake, the man "who led search for life on other planets" just died. Is there life on other planets? And, if so, how does that factor into an understanding of existence itself? There may be civilizations out there with brains actually able to solve it. But that's now all moot for Frank. Just as exchanges like this will one day be moot for all of us.

Unless, of course, there is a God.

Obviously there remain huge cosmological questions, like the fate of the universe. And we’d all like to know what happened before the Big Bang, but I’m fairly persuaded by the Hawking notion that time itself begins at the Big Bang and there’s no “before.” There’s no boundary. The universe is finite but unbounded, like the 2-D surface of a sphere.


Please. Time is easily one of most boggling aspects of reality itself. Is there really a, what, set of mathematical equations and/or scientific experiments that can leave no doubt that it came into existence with the Big Bang?

If so, by all means, link me to them.

On the other hand, who is kidding whom, here. How many or us are able even to grasp the conjectures of those like Hawking? Instead, it just seems entirely implausible that there could be nothing -- no time, no space, no matter -- and then it all just "popped" into existence, "inflated", and over 13 billion years became the universe as we know it today...about "93 billion light-years across".

One light year alone being 6 trillion miles. That's the equivalent of going around the Earth about 40,160 times.

Come on, the only thing more unfathomable still, perhaps, is that all of this was simply always around forever and ever.
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: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46403
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Ichthus77 » Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:21 am

Have you ever read Brian Greene’s Fabric of the Cosmos?

Entropy starts out ordered with the Big Bang, or first cycle. That’s a problem science can’t touch.

Likewise, if the universe were infinite, we would have already achieved heat death.

The vacuum energy & branes & stuff… something had to light the fuse, so to speak, or this never would’ve kicked off.

The other thing not many mention is what a beginning even means if the whole thing began complete (so every now is the beginning, and end, really, and the beginning & end, & every now, exist in Being/Time).

The only philosopher I have read that seems to understand Time (God’s Being) is Kant… but I have barely scratched the tip of the philosophy iceberg.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Sculptor » Wed Sep 07, 2022 11:08 am

The BB is based on the observable universe and the argument for it is circular in that it answers why there is a apparent limit.
It holds that every point in the universe is the centre of the universe and that the expansion we observe accounts for the time the universe has existed. The other sleight of hand of the BB theory is that time itself began at the same moment, and it is all carefully and cleverly wrapped up in a bow of uniformitarianism.

Aside from that uncertainty all the rest is wild speculation.


My feeling is that, since we know that the universe is subject to great change I see no reason that the fabric that uniformitarianism assume could not also be subject to change. Could the BB have been the result of a contracting universe. And so could our universe be on an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction?

So if something from nothing gives you a chill, then you have your imagination to reject it, and it would be as valid an idea as anyone else's
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2595
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Ichthus77 » Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:04 pm

cosmic microwave background radiation comes to mind

there was never nothing. ex nihilo is kind of a misnomer.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Meno_ » Thu Sep 08, 2022 5:03 pm

"I problemi filosofici riprendono oggi in tutto e per tutto quasi la stessa forma interrogativa di duemila anni fa: come può qualcosa nascere dal suo opposto, per esempio il razionale dall'irrazionale, ciò che sente da ciò che é morto, la logica dall'illogicità, il contemplare disinteressato dal bramoso volere, il vivere per gli altri dall'egoismo, la verità dagli errori? La filosofia metafisica ha potuto finora superare questa difficoltà negando che l'una cosa nasce dall'altra e ammettendo per le cose stimate superiori un'origine miracolosa, che scaturirebbe immediatamente dal nocciolo e dall'essenza della 'cosa in sè'. Invece la filosofia storica, che non é più affatto pensabile separata dalle scienze naturali, ed é il più recente di tutti i metodi filosofici, ha accertato in singoli casi (e questo sarà presumibilmente il suo risultato in tutti i casi), che quelle cose non sono opposte, tranne che nella consueta esagerazione della concezione popolare o metafisica, e che alla base di tale contrapposizione sta un errore di ragionamento: secondo la sua spiegazione, non esiste, a rigor di termini, nè un agire altruistico nè un contemplare pienamente disinteressato, entrambe le cose sono soltanto sublimazioni, in cui l'elemento base appare quasi volatilizzato e solo alla più sottile osservazione si rivela ancora esistente. Tutto ciò di cui abbiamo bisogno e che allo stato presente delle singole scienze può esserci veramente dato, é una chimica delle idee e dei sentimenti morali, religiosi ed estetici, come pure di tutte quelle emozioni che sperimentiamo in noi stessi nel grande e piccolo commercio della cultura e della società, e perfino nella solitudine: ma che avverrebbe, se questa chimica concludesse col risultato che anche in questo campo i colori più magnifici si ottengono da materiali bassi e perfino spregiati? Avranno voglia, molti, di seguire tali indagini? L'umanità ama scacciare dalla mente i dubbi sull'origine e i princìpi: non si deve forse essere quasi disumanizzati per sentire in sè l'inclinazione opposta?"




Translation:




"
Philosophical problems today resume in all respects almost the same interrogative form as two thousand years ago: how can something arise from its opposite, for example the rational from the irrational, what it feels from what is dead, the logic from illogicality , the disinterested contemplation of the longing will, living for others from selfishness, the truth from errors? Metaphysical philosophy has so far been able to overcome this difficulty by denying that one thing arises from the other and by admitting a miraculous origin for the things esteemed superior, which would immediately spring from the core and essence of the 'thing in itself'. On the other hand, historical philosophy, which is no longer conceivable apart from the natural sciences, and is the most recent of all philosophical methods, has ascertained in individual cases (and this will presumably be its result in all cases), that those things do not they are opposite, except in the usual exaggeration of the popular or metaphysical conception, and that at the basis of this contrast lies an error of reasoning: according to his explanation, there is, strictly speaking, neither an altruistic act nor a fully disinterested contemplation, both things are only sublimations, in which the basic element appears almost volatilized and only at the most subtle observation is it still existing. All that we need and that in the present state of the individual sciences can really be given to us, is a chemistry of moral, religious and aesthetic ideas and feelings, as well as of all those emotions that we experience in ourselves in the large and small commerce of culture and society, and even in solitude: but what would happen if this chemistry concluded with the result that even in this field the most magnificent colors are obtained from low and even despicable materials? Will many want to follow these investigations? Humanity loves to cast out doubts about origin and principles from the mind: shouldn't one be almost dehumanized to feel the opposite inclination within oneself?"



looking for source
(While forging for re-source)

.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13276
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Ichthus77 » Thu Sep 08, 2022 5:28 pm

Dunno, but do a search for Italian & read the context including Hobbes:
https://transversal.at/transversal/0613/waterhouse/en
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Meno_ » Sat Sep 10, 2022 5:57 pm

That would be like looking for a haystack in/on a needle , no. like looking for wounded tiny angel dancers stuck by needles, , red and the black all over

While trying to balance a silver. plate containing three apples, to the celebration of judgements day
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13276
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Meno_ » Sat Sep 10, 2022 6:08 pm

Meno_ wrote:That would be like looking for a haystack in/on a needle , no. like looking for wounded tiny angel dancers stuck by needles, , red and the black all over

While trying to balance a silver. plate containing three apples, to the celebration of judgements day




And now will try to read the piece on Hannah Arendt
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13276
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Sep 10, 2022 6:47 pm

You can use the search function for keywords. Whether on your phone or computer. Like you don’t know that. Ask the nearest anybody to show you.

You don’t have to read it. I didn’t. heh
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Meno_ » Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:59 pm

Ok I did not and will probably will not but now this: "something from nothing or no thing or always some thing"

In images there may not be other images which denote various others until an original is found because originals are rarely original.

There may be something or nothing which may be recursive to an absolute original so the question may be it even is a disposition.

The question then is not consistent with a prior apprehension apprehension of logical succession, buy a judgement based upon reductive reason by passing the most superfluous to the most essential.

And the question may not be formed around the concern of being or not , because living assumptions imply the more primal question of existing even before that question can be assumed.

I think that Freud answered that question by a linger term decision of choice between the original existential concern being more in tune with reality for the sake of existence and survival then the later concern with the pleasurable obsessions that are the offshoot.

That priority is becoming less divisive as the images of. angst as a longer held bar to existence recede in favor if the principle that man's primary objective is pleasure fir it's own sake.

Finally when such reality triumphs over the uconflated logic based on aesthetic justification ( Kierkegaard) , then and only then can live abide by It's own principles.

Until then 'no thing' and 'nothing' will. Not predicate one upon the other, thereby formed only by the principle of conservation of energy.. After the singular expression of such dynamic, impressions of reality will remain and based on intrinsic phenomena.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13276
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:36 am

I just watched the 2019 X-Men. We may all choose our fate, but who sustains, and is he exempted from interaction? And where did we ALL get that selfsame ability and hunger TO choose our fate?

Rhetorical.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Previous

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users