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

[Pattern-chaser]

The reason there has to be something is because nobody knows what it is like for there to be nothing.

Just consider this sentence, as it stands. The reason there has to be music is because nobody knows what it is like to be silent? I'm sorry, but yours is a Very Bad argument, and very obviously so.

...as a thought experiment, try to describe no-thing? I'll argue it's logically impossible.

"Nothing" describes the absence of any thing.

[3017Metaphysician]

The reason there has to be something is because nobody knows what it is like for there to be nothing.

Just consider this sentence, as it stands. The reason there has to be music is because nobody knows what it is like to be silent? I'm sorry, but yours is a Very Bad argument, and very obviously so.

...as a thought experiment, try to describe no-thing? I'll argue it's logically impossible.

"Nothing" describes the absence of any thing.

PC!

Actually PC, if you didn't already know, that's a non-sequitur (an erroneous either/or argument) . For instance, your statement regarding music is not relevant to logical impossibility/logical necessity and why there is something and not nothing. You seem to be saying that silence is the only choice opposite of music. There are other alternatives to 'audible phenomena' such as spoken language and other sounds of nature. So, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue there? Are you saying that you know what it's like for there to be nothing (?), or are you suggesting nothing exists vis-a-vis the logic of language?

Assuming it's the latter, let me try to help. Since you seem to gravitate toward either/or kinds of quandaries, the statement: "There exists at least one true proposition", is that true or false?

Thanks PC!

[Pattern-chaser]

The reason there has to be something is because nobody knows what it is like for there to be nothing.

Just consider this sentence, as it stands. The reason there has to be music is because nobody knows what it is like to be silent? I'm sorry, but yours is a Very Bad argument, and very obviously so.

...as a thought experiment, try to describe no-thing? I'll argue it's logically impossible.

"Nothing" describes the absence of any thing.

PC!

Actually PC, if you didn't already know, that's a non-sequitur (an erroneous either/or argument) . For instance, your statement regarding music is not relevant to logical impossibility/logical necessity and why there is something and not nothing. You seem to be saying that silence is the only choice opposite of music. There are other alternatives to 'audible phenomena' such as spoken language and other sounds of nature. So, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue there? Are you saying that you know what it's like for there to be nothing (?), or are you suggesting nothing exists vis-a-vis the logic of language?

Assuming it's the latter, let me try to help. Since you seem to gravitate toward either/or kinds of quandaries, the statement: "There exists at least one true proposition", is that true or false?

Thanks PC!

Thanks for the offer, but I don't need your "help". I am not here to be taught by you. I offered an illustration of the poor structure of your argument, which you ignored. Fair enough, there is no reason why you should take my comments seriously. But if you will not (take my comments seriously), discussion is impossible.

I love metaphysics, and your name proclaims you to be a metaphysician. So why are you so resistant to discussing metaphysics? Your standard response to any issue, it seems, is to deliberately misinterpret comments made to you, so that you can 'reasonably' ignore the points made by your correspondent(s). You make discussion impossible, which is a shame. Underneath the bluster and the teacher-preaching, you appear to make some interesting points. It would be nice to discuss them, instead of spending time trying to put right your intentional misunderstandings of what is said to you. It's a shame.

[3017Metaphysician]

The reason there has to be something is because nobody knows what it is like for there to be nothing.

Just consider this sentence, as it stands. The reason there has to be music is because nobody knows what it is like to be silent? I'm sorry, but yours is a Very Bad argument, and very obviously so.

...as a thought experiment, try to describe no-thing? I'll argue it's logically impossible.

"Nothing" describes the absence of any thing.

PC!

Actually PC, if you didn't already know, that's a non-sequitur (an erroneous either/or argument) . For instance, your statement regarding music is not relevant to logical impossibility/logical necessity and why there is something and not nothing. You seem to be saying that silence is the only choice opposite of music. There are other alternatives to 'audible phenomena' such as spoken language and other sounds of nature. So, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue there? Are you saying that you know what it's like for there to be nothing (?), or are you suggesting nothing exists vis-a-vis the logic of language?

Assuming it's the latter, let me try to help. Since you seem to gravitate toward either/or kinds of quandaries, the statement: "There exists at least one true proposition", is that true or false?

Thanks PC!

Thanks for the offer, but I don't need your "help". I am not here to be taught by you. I offered an illustration of the poor structure of your argument, which you ignored. Fair enough, there is no reason why you should take my comments seriously. But if you will not (take my comments seriously), discussion is impossible.

I love metaphysics, and your name proclaims you to be a metaphysician. So why are you so resistant to discussing metaphysics? Your standard response to any issue, it seems, is to deliberately misinterpret comments made to you, so that you can 'reasonably' ignore the points made by your correspondent(s). You make discussion impossible, which is a shame. Underneath the bluster and the teacher-preaching, you appear to make some interesting points. It would be nice to discuss them, instead of spending time trying to put right your intentional misunderstandings of what is said to you. It's a shame.

PC!

I'm sorry you 'feel' that way. Time and feelings themselves, both being metaphysical, are powerful things-in-themselves. However, as I'm sure you're aware, pure reason (albeit paradoxical and incomplete) also plays an existential role in our finitude of Being. We have no other choice but to use what little reason we have. To that end, you used reason to advance an analogy to music (another wonderfully metaphysical quality/Qualia of conscious existence), and I challenged it, but now you seem to be folding for some reason.

I'm not sure why you quit, but it's okay. Rather than try to use what little logic we have to refute my argument, shall I assume that your argument about your specific knowledge of 'nothing' and that you can actually 'prove' that nothing can exist/existed is a non sequitur then(?). If it helps, for fun, consider again whether this simple statement is true (I'll provide an explanation which may/may not help disarm the situation):

'There exists at least one true proposition' True or false? Call that proposition A. Is A necessarily true? Suppose I (in this case, your argument that there is 'nothing') contend that A is false. Call this propositions B: 'A is false'. But if A is false, so is B, because B is a proposition. And if A is false, there are no true propositions. So A MUST be true. It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions.

This argument obviously has other implications. It called logical necessity. You know, kind of like a necessary Being that somehow exists outside of time to cause time itself. And that would be in the framework of the BB singularity where in-turn that theory is devoid of complete explanation (that's why it's just a theory). In Singularity, the matter that expands into what's called the new universe and the creation of Time is unknown, because the theory itself doesn't posit where it, the matter/energy, initially came from (ex nihilo/from nothing). And actually, for some, the BB ironically becomes counterintuitive because it suggests a cosmic super-turtle started it all off, as the so-called logic of causation would have us believe. And so with respect to the OP, it suggests a timeless truth (that started something/Time from nothing) in a world of contingency, time dependence and change. Paradox (if not , why not)?

Just some more metaphysical things to think about.
Happy Monday!

[Steve3007]

Just consider this sentence, as it stands. The reason there has to be music is because nobody knows what it is like to be silent? I'm sorry, but yours is a Very Bad argument, and very obviously so.

Maybe a better rejoinder would have been to point out that what people do or don't know doesn't determine what is and is not the case. Your music/silence analogy seems like a good one but, in my experience, the trouble with trying to convey things to disingenuous posters using analogies is that it's too easy to deliberately misinterpret the analogy. When replying to posters who I know, from past experience, to be like that, I sometimes reach for an analogy and then put it away again, for that reason.

[Pattern-chaser]

Just consider this sentence, as it stands. The reason there has to be music is because nobody knows what it is like to be silent? I'm sorry, but yours is a Very Bad argument, and very obviously so.

Maybe a better rejoinder would have been to point out that what people do or don't know doesn't determine what is and is not the case. Your music/silence analogy seems like a good one but, in my experience, the trouble with trying to convey things to disingenuous posters using analogies is that it's too easy to deliberately misinterpret the analogy. When replying to posters who I know, from past experience, to be like that, I sometimes reach for an analogy and then put it away again, for that reason.

It wasn't even an analogy, but only a paraphrase of what the original poster said, intended to illustrate its absurdity. It was a Bad Idea, as you say, but I felt I had to try, and I did. But I see no point in continuing to bang my head against that particular wall.

[Steve3007]

...But I see no point in continuing to bang my head against that particular wall.

Me neither!

[3017Metaphysician]

...But I see no point in continuing to bang my head against that particular wall.

Me neither!

Oh grasshoppers, Metaphysics, the first principles of existence, is not for the faint of heart!

[3017Metaphysician]

...But I see no point in continuing to bang my head against that particular wall.

Me neither!

Oh grasshoppers, Metaphysics, the first principles of existence, is not for the faint of heart!

I'll enter yet another Time-paradox into the mix, enjoy!

The black hole paradox, sometimes called the black hole information paradox, is a puzzle that arose from contradictions in our understanding of how the universe works. First, let's have a quick recap on what a black hole is. A black hole is a region of space where the gravitational field is so intense that nothing, not even light, can escape from it.

One of the essential principles of our universe is the idea that no information can be created or destroyed. In other words, the universe is a self-contained system where information (atoms, particles, waves, and other matter) simply shift around. For example, if you grow a tree from an acorn, while it might appear that the tree has grown in mass from seemingly nothing, this isn't the case. The tree has taken information (nutrients, water, etc.) from the Earth. No matter how many trees you grow, the mass of the Earth remains the same. A similar principle exists in quantum physics, describing that the information of a system must be conserved. On a quantum level, information means the position, spin, and velocity of an atom. The idea here is that if you have this information, you can rebuild any object.

Black holes violate these rules because the information that enters them is destroyed forever, and no encoded information remains. But is this true? In the 1970s, Physicist Stephen Hawking proved that black holes emit radiation very slowly, suggesting that information does escape a black hole. However, it's believed that this radiation, called Hawking radiation, is random (the encoded information wasn't preserved). So next, scientists supposed that the information of objects inside a black hole must be encoded onto the surface of the black hole, called the event horizon. But still, that idea doesn't entirely work. Black holes decay, so what happens to that information when the black hole has completely evaporated?

Solving the Black Hole Paradox

Scientists aren't just sitting around scratching their heads in confusion but constantly trying to solve the black hole information paradox. However, so far, no one explanation fits all of the facts, although it does appear that we're getting closer.

Some scientists argue that we must be missing the last piece of the puzzle, and when we find it, everything will come together. This idea stems from the fact that black holes operate based on general relativity principles (the study of very large objects and their behavior) and quantum mechanics (the study of tiny objects like atoms). These two theories are critical to our understanding of the universe, but they don't match up. Thus, some scientists argue that the black hole paradox and other mysteries will be solved when we find a unified Theory of Everything.

Still, some rather wacky solutions to the paradox exist. Let's look at one of these unusual explanations; the holographic principle. The holographic principle expands on the concept of the 2D surface of a black hole's event horizon. The principle argues that perhaps the entire universe is encased in a 2D boundary encoded with information. If this is true, it means that everything we know to be real, like you and me, and the cereal you ate for breakfast, is actually just a holographic projection of the encoded information.

Excitingly, in 2020, new papers did shed some light on the paradox. Scientists studying "very old black holes" found that black holes not only start to dissipate matter as they age but start spewing it out. You can think of a black hole like a box that you overstuff with objects. Eventually, items will begin to spew out of it. These new studies don't explain how black holes empty themselves or whether this information is genuinely conserved, but it's a step towards answering the mystery for good.