Something Rather than Nothing

[mirandansa]

This is an argument I've been working on, I'd like to hear responses on how I could improve it or make it easier to understand.

A question I've heard often is: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Firstly this question betrays it self, because the adverb "Why" already supposes a purpose, cause or intention. The question we should be asking is not the intention behind there being something rather than nothing, but the process of how there is something rather than nothing. If I say "Why does the switch turn off the light?", the answer could come "because it's convenient". "Why" already implies the answer that there is some purpose, so the question should be:

"How is there something rather than nothing"

Now, if I say "How does the switch turn off the light?", you could only explain this with the science involved.

Secondly, there is both something and nothing. "Nothing" represents the absence of something that could potentially or hypothetically be present. If I say "There is nothing in the box", what I mean is "None of the things that could be in the box are". If I say "John owned nothing" what I mean is "None of the things John could own were owned by him.".

I basically agree.

So there are nothings. Therefore, the question should be:

"How is there something rather than no everything?"

I would suggest:

How X and not non-X is the case?

This is a question worth answering if we assume there was once no everything. If there was ever no everything, then even an omnipotent deity could not exist, because no everything includes the non-existence of concepts like omnipotence and gods.

No everything would mean no anything... maybe we would never exist if there was no everything.

Right, X is defined by non-X, and vice versa.

However this is only if we assume there was once no everything, which makes no sense because no everything would include no time and since time could not exist then there could never be a time where there was no time, right?

Not exactly...

This is where my argument might get a little confusing.

The problem is the assumption that X and non-X must follow one or the other diachronically (historically). If X is the case, non-X is not the case; however, non-X is what defines X, i.e. you cannot have X without at the same time having non-X. In this sense, non-X transcends time such that it defines X synchronically (simultaneously) at any point in time.

Then, "being a case" and "not being a case" are simultaneously actual, mutually forming a "higher" comprehensive case. This is the transcendence of existence and non-existence. There is this transcendental level on which a case of existence and a case of non-existence constitute a mutual case. And this transcendental level/case is neither existence nor non-existence.

Apparently, time could just be an illusion. In the same way that free-will could be an illusion.

Yes, they are. The principle of relativity already states that "the past" and "the future" themselves derive from a relative, subjective viewpoint. Time is a holographic construct. Its matrix is immanent to the universe, but its subjective unfoldment is holographic.

We are made up of complicated evolved biological mechanisms that allow us thoughts and also what we call free-will. That being said we are also made up of complicated physical mechanisms that produce for us what we call time.

As i see it:

Time separates different physical states of the universe into distinct slices of reality.
As regards our brain, different physical states coincide with different consecutive patterns & conditions of the neural network.
Earlier brain state A may have less "logs" (i.e. memories) of the universe than later brain state B does.
A, with less logs, cannot suppose B is before A, because A doesn't have the logs which B does.
B, with more logs, can suppose A is before B, because B does have the logs which B doesn't.

BRAIN STATE A { 010 } â–¶ ...
BRAIN STATE B { 010001 } â–¶ Hey, I'm later than A!
BRAIN STATE C { 010001101 } â–¶ Hey, I'm later than B!

, and so on.

I opine this is the cause of the sense of time within our brain.

Everything we see in life is a result of 4 fundamental forces. These forces are called electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravity. What this tells us is that studying these forces will give us an understanding of how everything works. However at a part of studying these forces we hit a bunch of weird shit; Quantum Dynamics.

Now, I'm not going to go into detail about how it all works, but I'm going to raise to attention one particular problem with it: Time. Time does not appear to work in the same fashion it does at our level. There have been a degree of problems explaining exactly how it works, however one valid theory that sets a model for how time does work has been formulated and dubbed the bizarre name Imaginary Time.

Imaginary Time doesn't work like time as we perceive it. It is seen as though it is a traversal dimension in space. There is no beginning or end in Imaginary Time, nor past or future. Seeing as this is a part of what governs the fundamental interactions that make up our existence it suggests that Imaginary Time may be the true reality.

What this would mean is that there could be a time where there was no time, but that things could still exist within it.

Here are some helpful insights concerning the nesting nature of reality:

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

 

[Andiferous]

It is so curious that you posed this question, as I was reviewing Watt again this afternoon.

"For the only way one can speak of nothing is to speak of it as though it were something, just as the only way one can speak of God is to speak of him as though he were a man, which to be sure he was, in a sense, for a time, and as the only way one can speak of man, even our anthropologists have realized that, is to speak of him as though he were a termite."

- Samuel Beckett, Watt

Do you mean to say that in order to understand God, assuming he or she is nothing, is to imagine him or her in a manner that has been experienced by the individual person, and such experience is dependent upon the person's personal underestanding or perception of the world?

If so, do you agree that there is a need for the premise that in the beginning there must be something rather than nothing? If yes, why? If no, why?

To my mind, the only good reason for this statement is that it is intuitive. It can be observed, supposing we are in an enclosed laboratory experiment, in order for an effect to happen, a cause must first be singled out. In a word, from the effect, we can analyse the effect and rebuild it by synthesizing the individual factors that make up the effect.

For example, in order to make fire, one must know what burns and causes something to burn. Let us suppose a candle is burning. All that is available is a match and a candle. After a short period, the candle no longer burns. In order to start the flame, we spark the match and burn the tip of the candle in order to start it up again.

Cause and effect. This is why, there is an assumption that something must have caused the effect of our current universe. Of course, I am not certain whether there really is a first cause, but because of this, do you think we can assume that there was such? Alternatively, it can be observed that there really wasn't a creation of the effect, because all that was required is already available. In a sense, it's just a loop, where something from one form changed into something which is another.

Now, I know it's counter intuitive that there is nothing that starts something. However, how do we provide or hypothesize the beginning of everything? I lean to the side that the reason is not god, but we must in a way provide another alternative. For certain it is unknown. What is unknown is the first cause. Something might have existed in the past which created our small corner of reality.

Therefore, this first principle can be assumed. It's just that we don't know what it is or how it started. In a way, everything is already available. Something already existing changes. Certainly such is not god, but an already existing material which changes characteristics by reason of a law that governs our current existence.

You know, there is no exact right answer, and your interpretation was wonderful.

And yes, I'm inclined to think that the passage was about human perception and subjectivity, and how we must necessarily conceive of intangible things by comparing them to familiar things, essentially simplifying them for ourselves. And I expect the message was that because we do so, we also must recognise the limitations of our own perceptions and as consequence the limitations of our understanding. (Note my signature. )

Or most of our ideas of these abstract concepts tend to be built by those ideas relative to us.

It is so curious that you posed this question, as I was reviewing Watt again this afternoon.

"For the only way one can speak of nothing is to speak of it as though it were something, just as the only way one can speak of God is to speak of him as though he were a man, which to be sure he was, in a sense, for a time, and as the only way one can speak of man, even our anthropologists have realized that, is to speak of him as though he were a termite."

- Samuel Beckett, Watt

Yes, I considered this actually. When we speak of nothings, we're actually speaking of something. Nothing is a concept, which is used as if it were a reference to something and it has to be, for if it weren't then we couldn't have a word for it, which is a problem with language, because we can't have a word for something that isn't, for once it is spoken it is (hypothetically). There is not nothing, nothing there is.

It does God a great disservice, him being omniscient and all, that he would ever use language to communicate. A very poor display of omniscience and omnipotence indeed. Language is more befitting of the tiny creature that is man.

Yes exactly, we're so limited by language. It colours our interpretations too. We are likely sacrificing some accuracy in an attempt to get an idea across, because we have to simplify the idea and put it to words, and it's unlikely anyone will receive it exactly as you intend it anyway.

Yeah really, god is a sort of inflated version of us, and he seems to change from culture to culture too.

Maybe off topic, but it's been pointed out that most deities universally tend to have human form, which seems a bit telling really. Memory is so bad, I can't remember the philosopher who coined the term - but he equated religion with 'mannism' or a weird sort of self-worship.