Philosophy Discussion Forums

Since Nothing (the Zero of total vacuity) has no properties, it can never have existence, so there can't be a Nothing outside of what 'IS', it suddenly acquiring some quantity of volume or such; so, Nothing is a nonexistent 'Absolute, so to speak.

Thus, what 'IS' (or the Universe as All), cannot be an Everything (the One of Total Solidity), for that would require a Zero outside it; so, Everything is a nonexistent 'Absolute, as well; so, for what its worth or means, all that goes on must be relative, as 'fractionals' between Zero and One.

Platos stepchild wrote: Maybe I need to have another go, at this. Let's imagine that we're able to step outside of the universe. It's there, and we're here. In that case, we could point over there and say "Look; the universe exists. There it is!" But we can't step outside of the universe. We can only step from here-to-there, within the universe. There's no outside, from which something which isn't the universe might then exist. And with nothing there, beyond the universe, it simply cannot exist.

I know it's counter-intuitive to say that, while the various components of the universe do exist, the totality of existence doesn't. But, a set needn't have the same property as does it's elements. The set of all books isn't a book. The set of all existing things doesn't, itself exist. An interesting consequence of the universe's non-existence is that, by not existing it has no beginning nor ending. (Non-existence, by default neither begins or ends). Therefore, dare we make the logical inference: the universe is eternal.

I think the problem here is that you are making existence dependent upon an observer.

Platos stepchild wrote: And with nothing there, beyond the universe, it simply cannot exist.

For one thing, your concept of what the universe is could be completely wrong, in fact, it might turn out that the concept that there is something that could sensibly be called "the universe" could be wrong. To say it is a set containing everything that exists might be nonsensical. But, if we allow that the universe is the collective name for all of existence, why does the fact that nothing else exists prevent the universe from existing?

Platos stepchild wrote:Maybe I need to have another go, at this. Let's imagine that we're able to step outside of the universe. It's there, and we're here. In that case, we could point over there and say "Look; the universe exists. There it is!" But we can't step outside of the universe. We can only step from here-to-there, within the universe. There's no outside, from which something which isn't the universe might then exist. And with nothing there, beyond the universe, it simply cannot exist.

I know it's counter-intuitive to say that, while the various components of the universe do exist, the totality of existence doesn't. But, a set needn't have the same property as does it's elements. The set of all books isn't a book. The set of all existing things doesn't, itself exist. An interesting consequence of the universe's non-existence is that, by not existing it has no beginning nor ending. (Non-existence, by default neither begins or ends). Therefore, dare we make the logical inference: the universe is eternal.

This is a textbook case of "rationalizing". A spectacular case at that. Because only a very special person could rationalize Everything actually not existing and yet being "eternal" at the same time, and on top of all that while he types to a philosophy forum from his keyboard. Separating the concept of "existence" from "eternity", and saying that while some things exist, everything does not, takes a very special person.

The Universe itself is not eternal, However the single substance from which the Universe is made manifest is Eternal, The Universe having a beginning and more likely than not will never end, will exist In one form or another forever.

The universe begins when it is realized. Otherwise, there is only the Void.

Spiral Out wrote:The universe begins when it is realized. Otherwise, there is only the Void.

How can the Void be realized if there is no one to realize it? The Void cannot ever be realized, so it cannot be proven to exit.

Misty wrote:How can the Void be realized if there is no one to realize it? The Void cannot ever be realized, so it cannot be proven to exit.

The Void cannot be realized, but the Universe can.

I'm working on my "three-state hypothesis" that will support my conception of the Void and how it relates to our "matter-real" state and how it shapes our material biases.

Coming soon…

Spiral Out wrote:

Misty wrote:How can the Void be realized if there is no one to realize it? The Void cannot ever be realized, so it cannot be proven to exit.

The Void cannot be realized, but the Universe can.

I'm working on my "three-state hypothesis" that will support my conception of the Void and how it relates to our "matter-real" state and how it shapes our material biases.

Coming soon…

I'm looking forward to it!!

The words Exist, realize, have made you people blind.

Reality existing independent of the Mind, does not have to be realized, recognized, made readily apparent, in order to exist, Reality exists independent of the Mind, speculation, Theory, conjecture, concerning it. However, the Knowledge of Reality must be Realized, recognized as being the knowledge of Reality in order to exist.

By definition a Reality must be readily apparent, measurable as to location and Momentum in order to exist in the material sensed of word.

The Infinite existing both a microcosm and a Macrocosm, is not readily apparent, is no measurable as to the location and momentum.

Wayne92587 wrote: The Infinite existing both a microcosm and a Macrocosm, is not readily apparent, is no measurable as to the location and momentum.

Is this a mistake or did you intend to write a meaningless sentence?

You know, this whole debate is becoming an interminable debacle. There are those who believe that reality is independent of observation; and, there are those who believe it's not. This is truly a debacle because there's no way to know whose right. Furthermore, although there's been talk of the universe not existing until it's observed, we cannot, in fact do so. We can only observe that which lies within it. The universe is a hypothetical-construct. I've previously contended that, as such it doesn't (and indeed, cannot) possibly exist. But, the better question is how we actually deem whether something's real, or not.

I suggest that reality is recognized only when (and if) there exists a deep emotional affirmation, that something is, in fact real. But, we nevertheless cannot dismiss the possibility that the world exists, apart from us. (Although, it would surely lack the appearances by which we recognize it). Still, for us the furniture-of-the-universe is an affectation. I've heard it said that we see wavelengths, and not colors. So, how do we know that colors aren't wavelengths? That's the crux of it. We simply have no privileged point-of-view from which to answer that question. In order to even attempt an answer to the question, we must first make certain gratuitous assumptions about reality which aren't in any way "real".

We know that hunger is real because it's an affectation. But, this recognition isn't enough; we still need to embed it within a narrative, of some sort. That narrative is laced with the kinds of assumptions previously referred to. Hunger thus becomes more than a mere ache; it becomes a quest for food. This quest isn't real, however because it presupposes an intimacy between us and food which isn't necessary for the world to be the world. But what about presumably dispassionate knowledge such as whether, say the Higgs Particle exists? I believe that even here, the reality of the Higgs is, in fact an affectation. It, too must be embellished within a narrative. This seems to be the best answer we can give regarding the universe. It's beginnings, however remain inscrutable.

Platos stepchild wrote: Hunger thus becomes more than a mere ache; it becomes a quest for food. This quest isn't real,

Well the next time I'm trudging round the supermarket on a quest for food and wishing I was somewhere else, I will take comfort from this thought.

Wayne92587 wrote:Reality existing independent of the Mind, does not have to be realized, recognized, made readily apparent, in order to exist

The above is a prime example of the aforementioned material bias.

If we are to make claims regarding a thing's existence, then we certainly have the burden to realize that thing, otherwise we will be lost in the claim that there is nothing that does not exist.

There's probably always been a constant, teeming flux made up Planck scale particles/waves/strings or even smaller objects. Spiral Out, I am imagining this as an alternative to your perfect void.