Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Ranvier]

"Exist" - whatever that means, is a state
"Nothingness" - is another state of non-existence, therefore, an "existence" of a state different from the state to "exist"

This becomes a paradox, a logical fallacy in meaning of words, as the state of "non-existence" (Nothingness) would have to "exist" apart from the state "exist", which can't "exist" without the state of "non-existence".

[Carter Blunt]

"Exist" - whatever that means, is a state
"Nothingness" - is another state of non-existence, therefore, an "existence" of a state different from the state to "exist"

This becomes a paradox, a logical fallacy in meaning of words, as the state of "non-existence" (Nothingness) would have to "exist" apart from the state "exist", which can't "exist" without the state of "non-existence".

Sadly, this paradox is my best guess for how something can "pop" into existence; through some kind of mathematical accident. Nothing exists, therefore something exists. Or, something and nothing are one-in-the-same, a duality that can either separate or not separate, on an infinite timeline, making separation inevitable. Or, at risk of speaking in platitudes, everything is nothing. The question I have in this scenario, is the "big bang", or whatever is at the start of it all is mathematical... was it symmetrical? Are there mirrors of us, living our special lives to the exact detail, in an unknown number of directions across the universe?

[Carter Blunt]

Everything is everything
What is meant to be, will be
After winter, must come spring
Change, it comes eventually
-Lauryn Hill

[Ranvier]

Sadly, this paradox is my best guess for how something can "pop" into existence; through some kind of mathematical accident. Nothing exists, therefore something exists. Or, something and nothing are one-in-the-same, a duality that can either separate or not separate, on an infinite timeline, making separation inevitable. Or, at risk of speaking in platitudes, everything is nothing. The question I have in this scenario, is the "big bang", or whatever is at the start of it all is mathematical... was it symmetrical? Are there mirrors of us, living our special lives to the exact detail, in an unknown number of directions across the universe?

I exult to have found the exceptional minds on this forum, with command of the language far beyond my own but also perspicuity of analysis.

Yes. "Nothing", if we should understand the meaning of words, implies "not a thing" can "exist" (whatever that means). Since we contemplate the existence of something that "exists", it entails a paradox or cognitive dissonance from the meaning of the word "nothing" or "nothingness". We might as well do away with the concept and conclude far more plausible infinite "existence" of something that suddenly gave rise or '"pop" into existence' of something else. I'm not opposed to magical thinking of imagination, conceiving of miracles in thought but as I wrote elsewhere "even to imagine 'nothingness' requires energy to imagine".

You pose an excellent question: "The question I have in this scenario, is the "big bang", or whatever is at the start of it all is mathematical... was it symmetrical?"

Yes and No. We should imagine the nature of particle-waves and what does it mean?

[Ranvier]

Everything is everything
What is meant to be, will be
After winter, must come spring
Change, it comes eventually
-Lauryn Hill

Perhaps more profound than she imagined

[Carter Blunt]

We should imagine the nature of particle-waves and what does it mean?

I had favored a deterministic world view for the longest while, but I'm not sure. I'm aware of quantum entanglement and "observer" theories, which could definitely explain how a sort of randomness might be introduced into the equation. Plus, it would just be boring to create multiples of the exact same characters. I suppose randomness wouldn't disprove determinism, either.

[Bahman]

"Exist" - whatever that means, is a state
"Nothingness" - is another state of non-existence, therefore, an "existence" of a state different from the state to "exist"

This becomes a paradox, a logical fallacy in meaning of words, as the state of "non-existence" (Nothingness) would have to "exist" apart from the state "exist", which can't "exist" without the state of "non-existence".

Sadly, this paradox is my best guess for how something can "pop" into existence; through some kind of mathematical accident. Nothing exists, therefore something exists. Or, something and nothing are one-in-the-same, a duality that can either separate or not separate, on an infinite timeline, making separation inevitable. Or, at risk of speaking in platitudes, everything is nothing. The question I have in this scenario, is the "big bang", or whatever is at the start of it all is mathematical... was it symmetrical? Are there mirrors of us, living our special lives to the exact detail, in an unknown number of directions across the universe?

That is how I see the picture of the Big Bang. Consider two universes one made of particles and another one made of anti-particles in which they started at the same point, namely the Big Bang point. These two universes have the same amount of mass, charge, etc. When you add them together at Big Bang point you get nothing. So nothing has the potential to turn into things. We however have to show that nothing can actually turn into something. I already showed that the act of creation is logically impossible so nothing can actually turn into something since there is something now and there was nothing in the past.

[Ranvier]

I had favored a deterministic world view for the longest while, but I'm not sure. I'm aware of quantum entanglement and "observer" theories, which could definitely explain how a sort of randomness might be introduced into the equation. Plus, it would just be boring to create multiples of the exact same characters. I suppose randomness wouldn't disprove determinism, either.

It's not "deterministic" in a classical sense but spontaneously emergent probabilistic pattern in multidimensional realm of information. Multiverse in some sense, where all possibilities are playing out simultaneously; but in our universe, only one "exists".

[Ranvier]

That is how I see the picture of the Big Bang. Consider two universes one made of particles and another one made of anti-particles in which they started at the same point, namely the Big Bang point. These two universes have the same amount of mass, charge, etc. When you add them together at Big Bang point you get nothing. So nothing has the potential to turn into things. We however have to show that nothing can actually turn into something. I already showed that the act of creation is logically impossible so nothing can actually turn into something since there is something now and there was nothing in the past.

I imagine an infinite [Reality] of [Energy] that gave rise to a pattern, where one field (particle) interacts with another field (wave) at a very specific & precise relationship. To imagine this one can picture the quantized nature (packets of energy), which would imply even greater complexity of fields in [Reality] before the "Big Bang". Therefore, to "exist" (whatever else it means), begins "Time" of "Change" within both fields. Without "change" there is no "time" nor "existence".

Given this: Scott's "Santa Clause" principles are both True and False, depending on perspective. From the perspective of our "consciousness", temporal change "exists" in a linear form due to 3D + spacetime "existence" of the physical matter (body), while "consciousness" can still venture into the multidimensional information space (past memories, present perception, future of imagination), bound to the (4D) perspective of the body. Yet, from [God] = [Energy] = [Reality] = [Consciousness] perspective, there is no time or space and "Santa Clause" & "unicorns" can "exist". What [We] don't have in our "consciousness", is God's access to the "information" of how to make a new universe or a little Sun to "exist". This is a mercy of God or [We] could make "Hell" to actually "exist". This is why [We] should be conscious of creating "god" in our own image (General Artificial Super Intelligence).

In my imagination

[Bahman]

That is how I see the picture of the Big Bang. Consider two universes one made of particles and another one made of anti-particles in which they started at the same point, namely the Big Bang point. These two universes have the same amount of mass, charge, etc. When you add them together at Big Bang point you get nothing. So nothing has the potential to turn into things. We however have to show that nothing can actually turn into something. I already showed that the act of creation is logically impossible so nothing can actually turn into something since there is something now and there was nothing in the past.

I imagine an infinite [Reality] of [Energy] that gave rise to a pattern, where one field (particle) interacts with another field (wave) at a very specific & precise relationship. To imagine this one can picture the quantized nature (packets of energy), which would imply even greater complexity of fields in [Reality] before the "Big Bang". Therefore, to "exist" (whatever else it means), begins "Time" of "Change" within both fields. Without "change" there is no "time" nor "existence".

Given this: Scott's "Santa Clause" principles are both True and False, depending on perspective. From the perspective of our "consciousness", temporal change "exists" in a linear form due to 3D + spacetime "existence" of the physical matter (body), while "consciousness" can still venture into the multidimensional information space (past memories, present perception, future of imagination), bound to the (4D) perspective of the body. Yet, from [God] = [Energy] = [Reality] = [Consciousness] perspective, there is no time or space and "Santa Clause" & "unicorns" can "exist". What [We] don't have in our "consciousness", is God's access to the "information" of how to make a new universe or a little Sun to "exist". This is a mercy of God or [We] could make "Hell" to actually "exist". This is why [We] should be conscious of creating "god" in our own image (General Artificial Super Intelligence).

In my imagination

First, God is a being and is not energy, reality, or consciousness. Second, I provide an argument against the act of creation from nothing so feel free to read OP and provide your criticisms.

[Ranvier]

First, God is a being and is not energy, reality, or consciousness. Second, I provide an argument against the act of creation from nothing so feel free to read OP and provide your criticisms.

What does it mean "God is a being and is not energy"?
Can there be any "reality" without "energy"?
In your "consciousness", can there be a "reality" without "consciousness"?

As for the "Second", I thought we agree there is no such thing as "nothing" or creation from "nothing".

[Ranvier]

I thought it was just a misguided misconception of few Nobel Price winners to seek "God's particle" or argue about different levels of "nothingness", as its otherwise a "common knowledge" that "God" [Is] every particle-wave and everything that "exists", (reality) itself. It appears it's not as obvious as I imagined.

[Ranvier]

We should imagine the nature of particle-waves and what does it mean?

I had favored a deterministic world view for the longest while, but I'm not sure. I'm aware of quantum entanglement and "observer" theories, which could definitely explain how a sort of randomness might be introduced into the equation. Plus, it would just be boring to create multiples of the exact same characters. I suppose randomness wouldn't disprove determinism, either.

Allow me to elaborate on "determinism".

Yes, in a small experimental environment with only two favorite probabilistic outcomes, it will be fairly "deterministic". Let us use a coin toss as an example of binary probability of "heads" or "tails". Upon billion samples of running the experiment, we'll arrive close to 50/50 outcome with some "uncertainty principle" of unusual outcomes (coin lands on the rim, disintegrates on impact, or even more unusual outcomes). Simple

Now imagine one byte of 256 possibilities of 0's & 1's dynamically interacting with just another byte of data. Now imagine human brain with 80-100 billion of neurons dynamically interacting. The numbers become astronomical as the number of variables (dimensions) increases from binary of 0's & 1's to say 28 letters. At such point it's much easier to begin using a mystical language of stories to comprehend the concept of spontaneously emergent "Free Will", where Adam & Eve seduced by the whispers of Satan chose this reality of imperfection.

[Carter Blunt]

What caused me to waiver, was the theory that the "observer" was affecting what quantum particles "decided" to do. Of course, their method of observing was to bounce another particle against it, so that's bound to affect the experiment. Still, who knows? Maybe determinism, maybe free will. There's even people who swear by "the secret", who say we invite our negative experiences in by overthinking them, and can think about millions of dollars instead, and become rich and successful. Lol. It might not be scientific, but there's definitely merit to thinking about what you want out of life, rather than what you don't want. I do lean towards determinism... it makes sense that every movement would be on its set trajectory, even at the quantum level. But as a world view, it has its pros and cons, and might not be for everyone.

[Ranvier]

What caused me to waiver, was the theory that the "observer" was affecting what quantum particles "decided" to do. Of course, their method of observing was to bounce another particle against it, so that's bound to affect the experiment. Still, who knows? Maybe determinism, maybe free will. There's even people who swear by "the secret", who say we invite our negative experiences in by overthinking them, and can think about millions of dollars instead, and become rich and successful. Lol. It might not be scientific, but there's definitely merit to thinking about what you want out of life, rather than what you don't want. I do lean towards determinism... it makes sense that every movement would be on its set trajectory, even at the quantum level. But as a world view, it has its pros and cons, and might not be for everyone.

Perhaps my analogy wasn't persuasive enough. Determinism is factual in a very narrow set of probabilistic outcomes, as in a double-slit experiment, where the information (measurement) actually collapses the wave-form to manifest as a particle pattern. The observer becomes "entangled" with the result. This effectively negates the hypothesis of determinism. You can predict (determine) an outcome in a given moment of spacetime but as the particle-wave dynamically interacts with other particle-waves, it becomes exponentially inversely proportional to certainty. Hence spontaneously emergent reality, not deterministic. You can go as far as the concept of "destiny" but it's not "written in stone", it can change. You can be clairvoyant and have an intuitive sense of the most likely outcome in an unimaginable complexity of probabilistic computation but it can change with any new previously unknown variable. You can't be God and know everything, I think.