Originally posted by Paprika
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?
Collapse
X
-
"[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostI think you are conflating reality or existence with the philosophical concepts of a "thing" or an "entity." The Empty Set is most certainly a "thing," in philosophy, whether one is a Platonist or a nominalist-- and an extremely useful one, at that. A thing needn't actually exist in order to be a thing. I'm sure you'll agree when I say that Batman is not equivalent to "nothing," despite the fact that Batman does not exist.
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostWe can only describe years prior to Batman's existence as being years Absent of Batman because the idea of Batman exists. The phrase "Absent of Batman" is completely incoherent without first having a concept of Batman. This is why no one prior to 1939 ever referred to anything as being "absent of Batman."
If this omniscient, multiversal observer is describing something as being Absent of Batman, it obviously has a concept of Batman by which to compare. If it does not have a concept of Batman, it cannot coherently describe something as being Absent of Batman.O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee.
A neat video of dead languages!
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostWhat properties and qualities does nothing have?
An absence is meaningless unless it refers to something which is elsewhere present. I'm sure that you'll agree that an Absence of Batman is very different from an Absence of Mountain Dew.
Absence also has number. There can be an absence or multiple absences.
You can describe the quality of an absence, as in a partial absence or a complete absence.
Et cetera, et cetera.Last edited by Boxing Pythagoras; 11-11-2014, 07:39 AM."[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by 2nd Kelp View PostOk. I guess that that makes sense. Thanks for putting up with me."[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostThat's my point. Nothing, philosophy speaking, is supposed to be devoid of properties and qualities. An absence is not. Therefore, "nothing" cannot be cogently described as an "absence" of things.
An absence is meaningless unless it refers to something which is elsewhere present. I'm sure that you'll agree that an Absence of Batman is very different from an Absence of Mountain Dew.
Absence also has number. There can be an absence or multiple absences.
You can describe the quality of an absence, as in a partial absence or a complete absence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostIndeed. But what does this have to do with the issue of whether 'nothing' has properties or qualities?
Do elaborate.
Except that 'partial absence' is an contradiction when used in a strict sense. Appealing to linguistic oddities hardly suffices, in my view."[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostI'm honestly unsure what was unclear, there. The philosophical "nothing" is devoid of any properties or qualities. An "absence" is not devoid of properties or qualities. Therefore, "nothing" is not an absence.
If one of my students was absent on October 3rd, October 20th, and November 10th, then I can count three Absences of that student.
I don't think that partial absence is a contradiction, at all. Absence is an inherently spatio-temporal concept.
When discussing an area, for example, it is entirely possible for some of the space within that area to be lacking the presence of a particular thing, but not all of the space. A partial absence describes this situation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostWhat does requiring a referent have to do with properties or qualities?
No, you don't. You count three time periods during which there was an absence.
I happen to disagree; absence can be within space and time but not necessarily so.
Again you're using a linguistic oddity - a colloquial phrase - to try to prove something about 'absence'. In the scenario you describe there is the presence within the space, though not within a subspace. Hence there is a presence within the space. There is no warrant to move from 'the thing is absent within part of the space' to 'partial absence', treating absence as something that is modifiable."[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostA referent is a property.
This seems to be a distinction without a difference. They are three separate absences.
Similarly, if you have an Absence of Batman, an Absence of Rubik's Cubes, and an Absence of Irony, you have three separate absences.
Why don't you think absence is modifiable?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kelp(p) View PostAccording to my crap knowledge of physics, there is no such thing as "nothing" scientifically speaking. What we call empty space is still full of fields and infinitesimal quantum particles popping in and out of existence (or is that arising from and going back into the background field? Depends on one's view of quantum mechanics?) Philosophically, I've been told that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a nonsense question because we cannot conceive of true nothingness and thus have no reference point from which to talk about it.
As I understand him, this is basically what Stephen Hawking means when he says that the universe creates itself without a God. He considers nothingness to be impossible and since there there is no such thing as a "beginning of time" therefore the universe must have an eternal past. I think Hawking killed my belief in a traditional Creator with this. All I'm left with as an alternative is the possibility of a God "eternal creating" the universe and providing a reason for it to exist rather than nothing at all. So, pretty much, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is my last recourse at having anything like a reason to believe in God. I know the idea of a "First Cause" just pushes the question of "why?" back one layer, but I'm trying to tackle one issue at a time here.
I'm not sure true nothingness really is an oxymoron, though. I feel like I can, in fact, imagine nothingness. If I think of a finite particle or field, then I also have to think of the places beyond it's reach, the places where it does not exist. What's to stop me from adding "this field is not here" to every field I can think of until I've imagined a "place" in which there none of the fields in the universe are, in fact, located.
Why there is something rather than nothing?
In the same way, I think I can conceive of nothingness even if I've never experienced it and even if I can only think of a limited number of fields to negate and "add up to" nothingness. And if I can conceive of nothing, then I'm also allowed to ask why there is something rather than nothing.
Theologically, the Baha'i Faith believes that there is an eternal infinite matrix that exists that reflects the nature of God similar to that proposed by modern cosmology from which all possible universes are Created. In other words, there has never been a time where there has been absolutely nothing.Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-11-2014, 02:04 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostHow do you figure? An absence has properties and qualities, and refers to a specific concept. An absence is every bit as much a thing as is a presence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostNo one is making the claim, that at any point nothing actually existed.
Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-11-2014, 02:14 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostSome Christians argue that God Created the universe from absolutely nothing.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment