...I feel strongly about proper thinking being humble and open to other possibilities... — Athena

Splendid! :)

I don't know who it was, probably Yuval Noah Harari (Israeli historian), that said that our DNA contains a record of the past experiences of our ancestors going all the way back to the first life forms 4.5 gya. If only we could decode this rather interesting double-helix tome written in the language of life (DNA/RNA). — Agent Smith

Maybe one day we will be able to. Surely it would be worth the endeavor to be able to intricately analyze the biological history of our own DNA.

I would say that computer science is growing faster than any other discipline, but right behind it surely is our understanding of DNA. We actually finished mapping the entire genome last year I believe!

I hold a paradoxical view of boredom, the basis of your thesis on repetition of events. Rather than expressing the lack of change, it indicates the incipient movement into uncharted waters. Boredom and monotony are symptoms not of the too-predictable, but of a previously mobile, fluidly self-transformative engagement with the world beginning to become confused and disoriented. Boredom is the first stage of creativity. We can’t become bored until change has already knocked at our door. — Joshs

Truly remarkable. :nerd:

One can never experience events in time as identical , since time never doubles back or exactly reproduces events. One only experiences them as similar. And this experience only becomes traumatic , restless, boring , despairing if it ceases to be familiar, if it instead droops us into a hole of chaos. — Joshs

Your expression is astonishing. I deleted my response several times because what you wrote, the more I think about it, the more deeply I become entrenched in its hold. Your description is crystalline clear.

I think it is just as easy to say that chaos is then the cause of our suffering, but then you throw "creativity" into the mix and now it's as if "suffering" no longer exists. Bravo!

Brilliant! :) Thank you for sharing.

I think the real issue at hand is the recurrence of time. That is, what if our suffering is due to repetition of experiencing time?

Those with no major ailments and who are merely suffering from boredom could actually be suffering not from the fact that they have nothing new to do, but rather from the repetitiveness of their own existence.

This gnawing at them that they have been here before and have done this a dozen times would never truly fade. New experiences will never feel as good as imagined. That is, the actual real occurrence of a fortunate event would never feel as good as one would hope.

Even if we were to take away all hopes, all purpose, all self-driven goals, and feel a simple peace in our hearts, we would still have to be patient with the fact that this is ultimately only the recurrence of time. And the time spent today is the same time spent yesterday, the same time will be spent tomorrow and so on.

Let us then have patience so that our hearts will be filled with the peace it deserves.

I think that is an enjoyable explanation and that it is insightful to distinguish the difference between a thrill-seeker and an intellectual. I like what you said about Aristotle not having something to prove in the beginning stages of our intellectual development. I am sure they all argued but perhaps with more of an intention to explore ideas rather than prove them as we do in this technological age. I have a very old logic book that stresses the notion that there is so much more that we do not know, so we should never be too sure of what we think we know. — Athena

Thank you! I totally agree, I could never feel so arrogant about what I know when it's clear to me that my education and the people that have come into my life are truly responsible for showing me how to think properly. :)

Everybody has a picture of the life they want to live and compares that to the life they're living. That's normal, rare are those for whom the two are indentical. Hence, as one Buddhist monk was kind enough to edify me, we have things we don't want and don't have things we want, only two components of the Buddhist take on suffering (dukkha). I suppose wanting to live another person's life boils down to these two states of dissatisfaction. To add insult to injury, one usually encounters an individual who has a life that matches your conception of an ideal life. Then, not only do you curse your luck, you also must now suffer the ignominy of being green with envy. Double whammy! — Agent Smith

It appears then that suffering is embedded in the very nature of living. It would be unfair that everything around us suffers and yet we do not. Now we must consider "fairness" as part of life, an eternal balance I suppose?

All the temporary complexities
From the Eterne will someday fade away,
Even the universe with its grandness
Will disperse its greatness into blandness. — PoeticUniverse

Very interesting, but many people including myself have a hard time subscribing to a truly entropic universe, especially in light of what appears to be a constant and infinite expansion of the universe by way of dark energy.

The issue is that Darwin could never have predicted that the soul was at the center of our true intellectuality. He seemed to be a worldly, adventurous man. He was more of a thrill-seeker than an intellectual. There is nothing wrong with that, but I would be willing to bet that he would rather romanticize the idea of the soul than to apply a scientific analysis and approach.

I feel like Aristotle was more of an academic at heart in this regard. He would be willing to apply the scientific method to discover the source of élan vital.

Darwin had something to prove whereas Aristotle did not.

What do you think?

Science shows us that there is a constant cosmic substrate that manifests in our universe through the phenomenon of quantum fluctuations. — Nickolasgaspar

Sounds like a violation of conservation of energy, no?

No, the law of conservation of energy is upheld. A quantum fluctuation is a "potentiality" for something to happen under the influence of some external particle or force.

Well, which one is it? Is it a spontaneous emergence of energy violating law of conservation, or is it just a potentiality?

Where are these quantum fluctuations coming from?

Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.

The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too...all reality is virtual.

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=7389&t=energy-creation-from-quantum-fluctuations#:~:text=Cerrito%2C%20CA%2C%20US-,A%3A,some%20external%20particle%20or%20force.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/#ixzz7PaeuUqOS

So it appears that matter is merely virtual and arises from quantum fluctuations of a quantum vacuum with no violation of conservation of energy. Nice :)

Now we will have to change existence from being matter and energy to it being quantum fluctuations.

The question of existence still remains...

Where do quantum fluctuations in the quantum vacuum come from? :)

If it comes from a potentiality, how is it that quantum potentialities exist without time and space?

If it exists in time and space then we will redefine existence as merely time and space. How does time and space create quantum potentialities?

The question of the origin of existence still persists. It won't go away by ignoring it or accepting it.
It is the crux given unto man. To venture into the external terrain.

The darkness obliges us to fulfill this intellectual endeavor, but I've found that outer space holds no difference from here on earth, nor the inner meditations of man.

Another question remains, how do we figure it out? What tools must be employed to dissect existence?

Will it be just a mathematics that was arisen from the friction of time?

Darwin's theory of evolution, though a nice attempt to figure out the origin of species, does little to help us understand even the most basic of human behaviors, such as our instincts for example.

...there is an unsettling gulf between widely accepted assumptions surrounding instinct and the actual science available to explain it.

There is no evolutionary explanation for the emergence of consciousness. We actually have no way of determining when homo sapiens became conscious and we often look to cave writings as our only clue.

In order to understand the emergence of consciousness we will need a much more robust theory than that of evolution. There is no point in dragging your feet another generation, wishfully thinking the answers can be discovered in a lab.

Our scientists should be concerned with the elimination of disease and the prolonging of life. This at the very least would give us more time to figure out the true mysteries of the human condition.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5182125/

Berkeley's focus on perception gave rise to the notion of "essence precedes existence". Through our perception we may learn to understand goals that pertain to life. In-turn our goals may help to shape our perception. This could be used as a method to develop a more useful intellect.

He was required to spend much of his time using persuasive communication (due to the mental limits of his peers) but it is possible that his ultimate goal was to create a method for cognitive fine-tuning. The end goal of perception has not been achieved, and we will need to use an even higher order of perception to pass the horizon.

Spectacular :) So the way that people such as myself would say it, is "all concepts exist beyond time".

I'm interpreting this as an agreement, but refurbishment, of what I said. However, I do not hold that "all concepts exist beyond time".

Your answer to the op would be, "existence was always here".

I don't want to be reiterative, and if you would like to close the discussion that perfectly fine (I am enjoying our conversation, but if you would like to end it that is fine too), but I want to clarify that I do not hold that position. If you would like to explain why you think that I am somehow implicitly arguing for that statement then please feel free: but I explicitly stated I am not in agreement with that proposition.

I look forward to hearing from you,
Bob — Bob Ross

Hi Bob!

The information that you have provided to the thread, especially re: "the existence of unicorns" has been more than adequate!

The thread shall stay open and it is a pleasure to have you here. Please do feel free to add as much or as little as you would like. :)

...humans are possessed of all manner of inclinations, proclivities, talents, dispositions, memories, intentions, and so on. Only a minor aspect of that is apparent to either the individual or others. — Wayfarer

Hello Wayfarer, I really love what you say here. I must agree that there seems to be an inherent mystery between our own consciousness and the sub-consciousness, and even more the central nervous system.

Our consciousness is at the forefront -the periphery of our awareness, but what lies behind it may conceal a far greater mystery than all the wonderful discoveries of the world, as rich as it is with knowledge and information.

Vitalism is associated with a late-nineteenth-early-20th-c philosopher called Henri Bergson. 'Élan vital (French pronunciation: ​[elɑ̃ vital]) is a term coined by French philosopher Henri Bergson in his 1907 book Creative Evolution, in which he addresses the question of self-organisation and spontaneous morphogenesis of things in an increasingly complex manner. Élan vital was translated in the English edition as "vital impetus", but is usually translated by his detractors as "vital force" — Wayfarer

Much appreciated :)

...It is a hypothetical explanation for evolution and development of organisms, which Bergson linked closely with consciousness – the intuitive perception of experience and the flow of inner time.' — Wayfarer

This is a profound sentiment. It appears that our consciousness is several orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the biology from which it arises. If perfection does exist, who's to say that it could not interact with biological systems.

There's actually nothing in that which contradicts Darwinism, it's more that Charles Darwin didn't think along those lines. Whereas his associated, Alfred Russel Wallace, did, and although he pre-deceased Bergson's work, I'm sure he would have found it congenial. — Wayfarer

Much appreciated :)

Quite possibly. Aristotle and Schopenhauer are very much representative of a specific intellectual tradition. — Wayfarer

You know, I had an intuition that this was the case. I am glad that I was not totally off on this one.

It's not one or the other. Evolution is an indubitable fact, but what evolution means is wide open for reassessment. There are plenty of dissident movements in evolutionary biology, not even counting 'intelligent design' - like the The Third Way. — Wayfarer

Having a gander at the site, it seems like it may offer fruitful information regarding biogenetic diversity and the processes therein.

Has that concept of a unicorn always existed? Or does that concept of a unicorn only exist for a certain amount of time (such as while you imagine it)? If the concept of the unicorn did not always exist, does that mean the concept of the unicorn had a beginning?

Yes, any concept under the uniform existential reference can "be" or "not be" in relation to time and space. — Bob Ross

Hi Bob,

Spectacular :) So the way that people such as myself would say it, is "all concepts exist beyond time".

Your answer to the op would be, "existence was always here".

Thank you for sharing!

Let me ask you a question, what does "existence" mean to you?

...I would consider "existence" as "to be" (or "being"). — Bob Ross

Excellent. Do you think the concept of "being" has always existed (or do you think that this concept had a beginning)?

For example, a unicorn that I imagined in my mind exists as an imagined unicorn... — Bob Ross

Has that concept of a unicorn always existed? Or does that concept of a unicorn only exist for a certain amount of time (such as while you imagine it)? If the concept of the unicorn did not always exist, does that mean the concept of the unicorn had a beginning?

Do human beings exist? Do you think the existence of human beings had a beginning? Or do you think human beings always existed?

Disclaimer:

Bob, this was a very long post. Please make sure to read to the end before starting your response. I think that once you read the post in full, you will see that I cleared up all the confusion. Thanks!

I appreciate the disclaimer, but I would like to assure you that I will always read your posts in their entirety before making any assertions: I would not be giving you nor your ideas the proper respect it deserves if I didn't. You can always expect this of me, and if I fall short then you have permission to slap me through the internet (:

That being said, I am going to respond in chronological order (I find it easier that way), but if that is an issue just let me know and I can try a different approach.

Well, if there is no predicate for existence that is certainly one thing. If it is a contradiction to ask the question that would be another thing. And of course it could be both as well, hehe (3 options you are alluding to).

Yes, I think you are right here: I would be positing the combination of both.

Hmm, not exactly. You see, you are creating a trap for yourself. When you say that something existed without existing, that would merely be an oxymoron. I would not be so silly as to ask a question that was merely an oxymoron. :)

Asking for the predicate of existence is asking what created existence in the first place. I suppose to you, that sounds the same as "what existed without existence". :)

I understand that it is silly, when posited in the manner I did, to ask such a question: but that is my point. When you state "Asking for a predicate of existence is asking what created existence in the first place", I think you are thereby conceding that whatever created existence exists prior to existence. Now, you may be referring to maybe a different underlying meaning for "existence" for the creator vs the creation (so two different meanings for "to exist"), but nevertheless they would both be underneath the universal "being" reference (but you talk about this later on, so more on that later).

Let me ask you a question, what does "existence" mean to you?

I am not sure how in depth to explicate here (so feel free to inquire more in you would like), but I would consider "existence" as "to be" (or "being"), which, for me, has no relation "the external world" specifically. My imaginations exist. My thoughts exist. However, it exists only insofar as it is not contradicted. For example, a unicorn that I imagined in my mind exists as an imagined unicorn, but does not exist as a concreto in "the external world". Still exists, just abstractly. I think we (as in humanity) like to make meaningful distinctions between a unicorn "existing" in the sense of in my head and in the so called "real world", but both are engulfed by the ever present, unescapable "existence". Colloquially, for example, people may argue that "unicorns don't exist"; however, as you are probably already gathering, I would say that they are referring to a concept of "existence" under the holistic concept of existence. Hopefully that makes a bit of sense.

Well, on the surface of it, it would seem that "nothing" creating anything other than "nothing" is an oxymoron, indeed. :) Nevertheless, there are Physicists who believe that this is what happened.

This is just a side note, but I honestly don't think Physicists (for example, Lawrence Krauss) are actually referring to "true nothingness", but an altered version (especially in Krauss' case: he just can't seem to grasp that he isn't solving the philosophical dilemma pertaining to such because he is not defining nothing in the same manner).

As far as something causing existence...I think you're getting too caught up on what is considered to be logical, versus illogical, non-logical, etc. It does appear as well, that you conflate non-logic as being synonymous with illogic. Something could be non-logical and that does not automatically entail that it is illogical.

Very interesting! I don't think, as of now, I agree (I don't think it is a conflation). It may be, however, that we aren't referring to the same "logic" (semantically), but if something is non-logical it is illogical. In turn, something that is illogical is irrational. But to dive into that, let's take your example:

You do realize that first of all, the universe could be illogical, right (or non-logical)? For all intents and purposes we can't even disprove a solipsistic existence (no, I am not advocating for solipsism, I can already see you saying, "that's another debate" :)).

You know me too well already (that's another debate) (:. But all joking aside, I first want to explicate back to you what I think you mean by "illogical" vs "non-logical" (so you can correct me if I am wrong). "illogical" is that which is violated during the process of "logical inquiry", whereas "non-logical", which is where I am not clearly seeing the definition, is when something doesn't directly violate "logic" but, rather, is simply something that lacks "logic" altogether. Did I understand that correctly?

I think that (to keep it brief) something is "logical" if it is not contradicted and something is "illogical" if it is contradicted. "non-logic", in the sense of an absence of "logic", is subject to the same critique as before: it is only our logical derivation of what the negation of logic would be. Maybe if you explain it in further detail I can respond more adequately, but I don't see when something could be non-logical.

In terms of solipsism, I want to separate two claims that are typically made therein: we have no good reasons to believe other people are subjects and we are the only subject. The former I have no problem with (and actually agree), the latter is a leap (a giant leap). The latter is where solipsists get into trouble, and that's where the contradictions arise. I think (and correct me if I am wrong) you are positing solipsism as an example of something we don't hold, but nevertheless can't be dis-proven (logically): it is dis-proven in the sense of the latter, and proven in the sense of the former. I genuinely don't see how anything pertaining to such was "non-logical".

And whatever did create the universe would obviously have to surpass the normal laws of Physics that we abide by.

So when I speak of something never surpassing the universal being, spatial, and temporal references, I don't mean "physics". I am perfectly fine, for all intents and purposes, agreeing with you that such a being (if they exist) would have to transcend physics (I don't hold that "physics" or "laws of nature" are synonymous with "logic").

For a lot of what this question asks, logic will totally fly out the door.

If what you mean by this is "physics will fly out the door", then I agree. I do not hold that "logic" flies out the door, as it is utilized to derive everything (including "everything" itself). There's never a point at which I can conclude that I've derived a situation where the principle of noncontradiction is false, because even if I could do that it would be contingent on the principle of noncontradiction in the first place (i.e. this hypothetical situation where pon is false, is contingent on me utilizing that very principle to derive it in the first place).

The art of this is to properly identify what is the most rational line of logic, if any, that we can apply to it. But do not forget that the very question will blur the lines of reality (since we are asking for the origin of reality itself).

I hate to be reiterative, but it blurs lines, I would say, because it is contradictory (albeit not self-evidently contradictory).

This is simply not true. An omniscient entity need not abide by the rules of our physics. The possibilities are as far as the imagination can go.

I think that we are utilizing "logic" differently. I have no problem, for all intents and purposes, conceding that an "omniscient entity" would not need to abide by the rules of our physics, because I don't hold "physics" as synonymous with "logic". Imagination abides by logic (I know, it may sound crazy). That doesn't mean that my imagination abides by physics (it definitely doesn't: I can fly on my imagined earth).

"Nothing" does not reference existence. Nothing is the complete opposite of that. "Nothingness" has no reference in the first place.

"Nothing" is not an existence. Nothing would be the complete opposite of that. Nothing is not a spatial reference. Nothing has no reference in the first place. The more you try to describe nothing, the less it is the true idea of nothing :)

Well, we are "something" so it is very hard to conceptualize "nothing". As you are saying, whatever concept you have, it will be of "something". That's how you know what nothing is (it's the exact opposite). Do you see how that works? :)

This is merely more of the same. The key to understanding "nothing" again, is not to envision the "combination of concepts" as you say, but rather, the deletion of them. When you get good at conceptualizing the "absence", then you will have a decent understanding of nothing.

Sure, it is ultimately impossible to conceptualize nothing, but that is exactly what you need to understand. :)

It's the exact opposite of everything you know. The more you fight it, the less it is "nothing". Embrace the "absence". Btw, do you know what would happen if you could actually conceptualize "nothingness"?

I think you are agreeing with me that we cannot conceptualize or fathom "nothing". However, I think you are stilling positing that it somehow exists apart from existence. Would you agree that "nothing" is simply the potential infinite of "deleting" concepts? My point is that that potential infinite would merely, at best, approach the limit of "nothing", and I feel like you are agreeing with me on that. However, that previous sentence is partially wrong, there is no "actual nothing" that is apart from "nothing" as a potential infinite of removals (we aren't approaching "true nothingness").

Likewise, the process of achieving a potential infinite of removals is simply the removal of something from space. That is what I mean by nothing being spatially referenced. Obviously nothing would negate "space": but would it? No. It would negate a conception of a spatial framework under the uniform space. Every attempt to negate "space" would follow that pattern for a potential infinite of times. Do you agree with me on that?

So, to recap, to say that one gets decent at understanding nothing by practicing the deletion of concepts, that is all "nothing" is. There's no "actual nothing" that we are approaching the limit of when we perform such actions.

Where you make your mistake is in assuming that because we are "something" that we cannot learn about "nothing". But we can; nothing is the complete negation of everything that we know to be something.

I don't have a problem exploring the practice of the absence (in a potential infinite fashion) of concepts. My point is that "nothing" in the sense of a potential infinite is not the same as positing a "complete negation of everything": that is attempting to achieve something which doesn't exist (an actual infinite of removals). That is recognizing the potential infinite of removals and leaping (in my opinion) to the idea that we are moving towards (approaching in a limit style) "true nothingness".

And here you are telling me that we cannot understand nothing. We are the only ones that can! Because we are something!

Hopefully I cleared up some of the confusion: I agree that we, as something, can explore the concept of a potential infinite of removals, but that's not "true nothing" in the sense of an actual infinite of removals. I would refurbish "true nothing" as simply the former and deny the latter.

I look forward to hearing from you.
Bob — Bob Ross

Hi Bob! :smile:

Okay, so at this point I'd like to take just a small step back, and really try to understand what your contention is with the question regarding the op.

In summary: I ask of the audience, what do you think, if any, is the predicate of existence?

In summary: You are saying that the question is illogical?

You are saying that there cannot be a predicate of existence because any answer would entail existence itself? Thus, it would be a contradiction?

I suppose what I do not understand is, why is it useful to you, to say that the question is illogical? This question, is directly coupled with the following observation...

In the op, I offer another option, instead of saying that there is a predicate of existence, you could say that existence was always here.

Are you saying that existence was always here? Or are you only saying that the question is illogical, but ignoring (I do not mean this in an accusatory sense!) the option of an eternal universe?

At this point your entire response seems to be a contention of the question, but I would like to know, are you saying that the universe is eternal? Do you even believe that we are in a universe?

I have no problem addressing your contentions, but I just want to make sure I first have an answer to the question of the op, unless that is, you are saying that the universe is neither eternal, nor is there a predicate (because that is illogical to you)...I am trying to figure out exactly what your answer is or other possibilities you think there are that were not already offered in the op.

Disclaimer:

Bob, this was a very long post. Please make sure to read to the end before starting your response. I think that once you read the post in full, you will see that I cleared up all the confusion. Thanks!

In terms of what we've been discussing (which it is a great discussion by the way!), I have no problem with either postulations (it being outside of 3D or within it), as my main point is that both postulations have no bearing on my assertion. — Bob Ross

It's truly my pleasure, your enthusiasm is a breath of fresh air. :)

They would both still be conjectures that are under the uniform spatial reference. It could very well be that I am missing something, so please feel free to point it out if you think I am misunderstanding (: — Bob Ross

Hmm, I do not think that you are missing anything at all, I do think that you may be splitting hairs just a tad bit, but honestly, it's probably a lack of proper explication on my part (I'll try to fix that if I can).

Briefly speaking, I would argue that there is no predicate to "existence" and to ask for one I think is a contradiction... — Bob Ross

Well, if there is no predicate for existence that is certainly one thing. If it is a contradiction to ask the question that would be another thing. And of course it could be both as well, hehe (3 options you are alluding to).

...it is asking for what existed without existence... — Bob Ross

Hmm, not exactly. You see, you are creating a trap for yourself. When you say that something existed without existing, that would merely be an oxymoron. I would not be so silly as to ask a question that was merely an oxymoron. :)

Asking for the predicate of existence is asking what created existence in the first place. I suppose to you, that sounds the same as "what existed without existence". :)

Let me ask you a question, what does "existence" mean to you?

Therefore, "existence was caused by nothing" is just as much of a logical contradiction as "existence was caused by something". — Bob Ross

Well, on the surface of it, it would seem that "nothing" creating anything other than "nothing" is an oxymoron, indeed. :) Nevertheless, there are Physicists who believe that this is what happened.

As far as something causing existence...I think you're getting too caught up on what is considered to be logical, versus illogical, non-logical, etc. It does appear as well, that you conflate non-logic as being synonymous with illogic. Something could be non-logical and that does not automatically entail that it is illogical.

You do realize that first of all, the universe could be illogical, right (or non-logical)? For all intents and purposes we can't even disprove a solipsistic existence (no, I am not advocating for solipsism, I can already see you saying, "that's another debate" :)).

And whatever did create the universe would obviously have to surpass the normal laws of Physics that we abide by. I would assume it would be some sort of omniscient kind of entity or force. For a lot of what this question asks, logic will totally fly out the door. The art of this is to properly identify what is the most rational line of logic, if any, that we can apply to it. But do not forget that the very question will blur the lines of reality (since we are asking for the origin of reality itself).

Nothing can be posited that isn't engulfed in the universal reference of "being"... — Bob Ross

This is simply not true. An omniscient entity need not abide by the rules of our physics. The possibilities are as far as the imagination can go.

Even "nothing" itself is referencing existence... — Bob Ross

"Nothing" does not reference existence. Nothing is the complete opposite of that. "Nothingness" has no reference in the first place.

...merely an existence most absent of all things (i.e. a spatial references with absolute minimal things contained in it). — Bob Ross

"Nothing" is not an existence. Nothing would be the complete opposite of that. Nothing is not a spatial reference. Nothing has no reference in the first place. The more you try to describe nothing, the less it is the true idea of nothing :)

I can nor could I fathom whatever an "actual nothingness" would be because I am simply cogitating a concept of "nothingness" as without something (i.e. zero apples is simply a reference, still to existence, of something that can't be identified with "apples") — Bob Ross

Well, we are "something" so it is very hard to conceptualize "nothing". As you are saying, whatever concept you have, it will be of "something". That's how you know what nothing is (it's the exact opposite). Do you see how that works? :)

Yes, I know its tricky.

And the reason I am able to even assert (and contemplate) "true nothingness" or "actual nothingness" is simply due to my ability to conceptually combine concepts together: "actual" implies that something isn't what I deem "fake", and when I concatenate that to "nothingness" (the absence of as much as fathomable) I get a false hope that I have somehow achieved some other concept than "nothingness" ("nothingness" as itself, apart from all illusions)(that I could "actually" conceive, even partially due to the very utterance, "nothing"). "Nothing itself" (just like "true nothingness") is no more than the concatenation of concepts that produces a fallacious belief in producing a new concept. For example, "what is outside of space?" produces an illusion that I have somehow achieved a question that suggests something beyond space, but really I have conjoined the concept of "space" with my concept of "outside" (which is spatially referencing). What really is being posited in "what is outside of space?" is a spatial framework under the universal spatial reference that may be distinct from yet another spatial framework (i.e. "outside"): thereby getting no closer to even fathoming anything beyond space (and "beyond space" is subject to the same critique) — Bob Ross

This is merely more of the same. The key to understanding "nothing" again, is not to envision the "combination of concepts" as you say, but rather, the deletion of them. When you get good at conceptualizing the "absence", then you will have a decent understanding of nothing.

Sure, it is ultimately impossible to conceptualize nothing, but that is exactly what you need to understand. :)

It's the exact opposite of everything you know. The more you fight it, the less it is "nothing". Embrace the "absence". Btw, do you know what would happen if you could actually conceptualize "nothingness"?

(Uh oh, I don't want to get you started..."It's not possible to conceptualize nothing because even the concept of nothing is still...") :snicker:

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand what you are saying. But you are letting your intuition stop you from learning about "nothing". Your goal should be to learn about it rather than to fight it. Where you make your mistake is in assuming that because we are "something" that we cannot learn about "nothing". But we can; nothing is the complete negation of everything that we know to be something. This allows us to understand everything there is to know about nothing. In fact, it is only "something" that can understand nothing in the first place. Nothing cannot understand itself, because it is nothing. :)

So, it is in fact our gift of being "something" that we may understand what "nothing" is. And here you are telling me that we cannot understand nothing. We are the only ones that can! Because we are something!

I'd go a step further and say that they are unanswerable; that they are non-questions. There simply are things that are taken as granted. — Banno

You think so?

But much of philosophy, especially metaphysics, and much of religion, consists in attempting to provide inevitably wrong answers.

Better to be silent than to be wrong or to talk nonsense. — Banno

That is certainly one way of looking at it. :)

I'm sorry, I meant in terms of distinguishing between science and religion. Of course you could just as easily get your morals from ethics or some other subject in the liberal arts.

There's a logical difficulty that appears insurmountable in your question.

Given any answer, you wold be quite justified in asking why that answer, rather than some other. So for example if someone says that the universe was sneezed from the nose of Great Green Arkleseizure you might well ask where the Great Green Arkleseizure came from.

And that process applies to any answer you receive.

Like answering the proverbial three-year-old, eventually one ends up saying "just because'. — Banno

Banno, that is very true. Questions pertaining to existential origin are the hardest questions.

I appreciate your response. Although I may just be misunderstanding the article you referenced, it seems as though they are disputing time being that of 4D (and positing it as apart of 3D), not that time is "separate" in the sense of time being truly separate from "space" altogether:

Time is 'separated' from space in a sense that time is not a fourth dimension of space. Instead, time as a numerical order of change exists in a 3D space. Our model on space and time is founded on measurement and corresponds better to physical reality.

In terms of what I said in my post, I don't find anything wrong with positing time "in a 3D space".

Hypothetically (just in case I misunderstood the article), let's say they were arguing for a time which is "outside of space" (or "beyond space"), then I think it would be subject to the same critique I made in my original post.

It also depends on what you are referring to by "space". I am not considering it in the sense of "outer space", "string theory", "special relativity", etc (although they are really interesting and worthy considerations): I am referring to the universal spatial reference of everything (including "everything" itself"). Which I think physicists tend to be more interested in distinctions of "space" under the uniform, inevitable spatial reference (which, to be honest, I think they should be: they're profession is science not philosophy). — Bob Ross

Absolutely! You have it right, it's just that ever since Einstein described time as a fourth dimensional property, time was seen as something existing outside of the 3 dimensions we currently live in. :smile:

The article is merely stating that they are trying to prove that time can be used as a measurement within 3-d space. Nevertheless, time would still be separate from space whether in a fourth dimension or as a measurement.

I guess my larger point to your contention (Physics experiments aside :)) regarding notions of "nothing", and things that do not have a cause, self-creation, etc., is that such descriptions are actually possible. Just because something cannot exist does not mean it cannot be described.

Sure, we can accept that the universe was always here, but it will still lead to very difficult questions to be answered.

I'll give you one example:

It must be said that "nothing" is far easier than "something". For nothing to exist there is no friction, no energy that need be applied, no mathematics, no logic, no suffering, no agony, no dismay, no death and destruction, no moral arguments, no restitution nor justice. There needn't be any struggle for survival, betrayal, striving for immortality, fighting against the odds...there would merely be nothing. Nothing is far easier. It is the highest paradigm of Occam's razor.

Why need there be something when there can be nothing?

And yet, here we are in a vast, limitless universe. Certainly we are not here to just accept it all. I mean, plenty of people do, and that works out just fine for them. But to have a brain and be surrounded by countless inanimate matter, in an environment where we seem to be the pinnacle of intelligence, we are thus obligated to question how we got here and why.

Providing the sound principle of "Occam's razor" we must admit that something is far harder than nothing. And if this is not the case, then what is it that is stopping nothing from existing?

Are we proof that nothing cannot exist? If we are the power that defeats nothing then we must be the power that creates inquiry.

Religion for some time has been trying to make amends with science -which has been moving farther and farther into the realm of empiricism (and only rightly so).

I do not think that religion and science should necessarily agree with each other though. We need religion for our morality and we need science for our rationality. In the greater modern times one will be equally needed to the other.

Briefly speaking, I would argue that there is no predicate to "existence" and to ask for one I think is a contradiction: it is asking for what existed without existence. Therefore, "existence was caused by nothing" is just as much of a logical contradiction as "existence was caused by something". Nothing can be posited that isn't engulfed in the universal reference of "being", and, consequently, it is not possible to actually posit the question "what is the predicate of existence": it can be uttered, but nevertheless references something causing something under the universal spatial (and "being") reference. Even "nothing" itself is referencing existence, but merely an existence most absent of all things (i.e. a spatial references with absolute minimal things contained in it). I can nor could I fathom whatever an "actual nothingness" would be because I am simply cogitating a concept of "nothingness" as without something (i.e. zero apples is simply a reference, still to existence, of something that can't be identified with "apples"). And the reason I am able to even assert (and contemplate) "true nothingness" or "actual nothingness" is simply due to my ability to conceptually combine concepts together: "actual" implies that something isn't what I deem "fake", and when I concatenate that to "nothingness" (the absence of as much as fathomable) I get a false hope that I have somehow achieved some other concept than "nothingness" ("nothingness" as itself, apart from all illusions)(that I could "actually" conceive, even partially due to the very utterance, "nothing"). "Nothing itself" (just like "true nothingness") is no more than the concatenation of concepts that produces a fallacious belief in producing a new concept. For example, "what is outside of space?" produces an illusion that I have somehow achieved a question that suggests something beyond space, but really I have conjoined the concept of "space" with my concept of "outside" (which is spatially referencing). What really is being posited in "what is outside of space?" is a spatial framework under the universal spatial reference that may be distinct from yet another spatial framework (i.e. "outside"): thereby getting no closer to even fathoming anything beyond space (and "beyond space" is subject to the same critique). — Bob Ross

That's very interesting, did you know that some Physicists are now trying to prove that time exists separately from space? This is in regards to your saying there's no such thing as "beyond space".

Very old, but quite relevant to what you are saying here:

https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

What caused causality "to be"? — 180 Proof

I think it would be easier on the eyes if you wrote that, "why does causality exist?" :snicker:

What caused existence to be, and why? — chiknsld

What caused causality "to be"? "Existence fails to be" (or "existence cannot be") is a self-contradiction like "nonexistence exists". — 180 Proof

Ahh, I see what you're trying to do there. :smile:

Also, the only answer to the (ultimate) "why" question which does not precipitate an infinite regress is that There Is No Why. — 180 Proof

Ahh, that's quite interesting.

Is it even important to ask such questions? — chiknsld

They're "important to ask" only insofar as "such questions" yield more probative, precise, less speculative questions. — 180 Proof

Indeed, thank you for sharing.

That's where I put my vote, based on not much of anything. It's not begging the question at all, it's saying the question is meaningless. — T Clark

Hmm, well "begging the question" is the informal fallacy of the conclusion being contained in the premise, it has nothing to do with an actual question, per say. Let me explain (and sorry that I was not more clear).

As far as "something always being here", it begs the question in the sense that we are even here talking about it in the first place. In an infinite world it should follow that there is no explanation for "infinity", rather, it would be a given (I believe this is what you were trying to convey as well). :smile:

It would be akin to the question, "what is the predicate of a human?", and the answer being "the human genome". Sure, the human genome can explain in part why we are human, but the answer is tautological in nature and gets us really nowhere closer to the truth (unless that is, you believe existence precedes essence, in which case "the human genome" would be a perfectly fair explanation for "humanness").

And so, asking the predicate of existence, and the answer being "something was always here" is in a sense merely a begging of the question, and at the very least an infinite regression.

The real question is when did understanding, that which we call understanding, perhaps consciousness of existence come into.. coherence? — Outlander

From recent ganders on the net, I've seen growing talk of "evolution of consciousness".

Someone by the name of Donald Hoffman (cognitive scientist) claims that evolution shapes consciousness, which is a bit of a strange way of saying that consciousness evolves. Such a theory would have very little, if anything to do with science as there is currently no quantification of consciousness.

Germs and other single-celled organisms no doubt exist on other extraterrestrial terrains. They produce, mingle (perhaps?), and also die. It's a multi-faceted question. Why is our idea of consciousness in vocal and visual communication any less rich than theirs simply because we cannot perceive it? — Outlander

Hmm, I've never heard such a question. I suppose that a single-celled organism is no match for our 170 billion brain cells tirelessly working in unison? :snicker:

My friend, you braved the answer to my question, and so I must be brave enough to be as modest as you are.

Idealism does not entail anti-realism. Berkeley thought rocks and chairs existed. They were just mental objects. Thus, idealism can work fine with science... — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, indeed. And it's peculiar that in a mental world we all share the same explicit descriptions of biology, nature, and physics. One example could be our internal organs, such as the existence of a set of lungs or the intestines underneath our stomach.

When a dissection is performed, everyone agrees that they see the same thing inside.

This leads to 2 conclusions:

Either there is a larger mind that creates these precepts (for us to follow) so that we may unanimously agree on physical nature.

Or, the physical world does indeed exist, without some pre-arranged collective unconscious conspiracy, where we are deciding to agree with each other how the physical world will look.

Even microorganisms seem to share an equal awareness of their environment. The forces of nature (gravity and electromagnetic, etc.) seem to behave consistently throughout the environment.

This purely mental world does not show any profound inconsistencies in both the mental and physical aspects of reality.

Still, we have not shown a disproof of "Esse est percipi", we have merely used inductive reasoning to say that our mental agreement about the world is proof that a larger, physical world exists.

I had a pleasure reading everyone's comments. Unfortunately, I'm feeling a bit under the weather, but don't worry I am still here...perceiving... :snicker:

Sartre'sThe Look:

The mere possible presence of another person causes one to look at oneself as an object and see one's world as it appears to the other. This is not done from a specific location outside oneself, but is non-positional. This is a recognition of the subjectivity in others.
(Wiki)

I have found this to be a profound truth. Especially in certain dangerous activities. — jgill

A very intriguing idea :) Thank you for sharing.

"To be, is to be perceived"
— chiknsld
If so and if, however, it doesn't make sense to say "perceiving is perceived", then "perceiving" cannot be; therefore "to be" has to be other (more) than "to be perceived". :eyes: — 180 Proof

"To be" entails something greater than perception? Interesting :)

↪chiknsld The problem with Esse Est Percipi is that it is too passive. One also acts upon the world. While jgill's look shows that others exist, it's what you do that makes you who you are. — Banno

Perception is the sense awareness of the environment that starts within the mind and then pushes outward. But action must be accounted for as well? Yes, this seems reasonable to me.

Even for realists, existence is predicated on perception (seeing is believing kinda deal). For a realist, perception (sense-and-instrument-based detection) is the sine qua non of being/existence.

Question to realists: How do you all tell the difference between nonexistent things and unperceived things? Perhaps your explanation will state that there's a world of a difference between unperceivable (nonbeing) and unperceived (hidden being).

Here things start getting interesting (re: unperceivable →→ nonbeing i.e. esse est percipi) — Agent Smith

This sounds like a profound idea! Berkeley seems to avoid this trap by saying that there must be an ultimate, omniscient perceiver who perceives all. If we get rid of this ultimate perceiver, we would still have trouble proving that anything exists beyond perception.

If you think that perception does not produce just knowledge, but also emotions, choices, answers, art, action, life, communication, progress, spirituality, meditation, history, dream, love...yes, perception is something very limited, but great enough to fill our life with the whole infinite universe of inner life.
Since perception is human, involves our human condition and happens over human time, we can even connect the idea “to be is to be perceived” to Heidegger’s philosophy of being and time. — Angelo Cannata

Hello Angelo :) Ah, it seems you find much joy in the story of life. What about someone living in abject poverty such as a third world country or someone with a terrible disease who is suffering everyday? Does their perception allow them to see the same beauty that you find?

That sounds fantastic. :)

I suppose it is true, that women need love. Do you think that men and women have the same needs?

No need to apologize, it was a pleasure to read. I do wonder though, was Einstein a victim of his own intellectuality? I assume he died unsatisfied with the mere findings of Physics.

Ah, very sentimental :smile:

Teach them to love something, something that is theirs and they'll have for the rest of their lives. — T Clark

Are you referring to women?

If you desire greater capital, then it is achievable to the degree that you give effort. Partake in more capitalistic endeavors.

Ahh, that is very interesting :)

What exactly is the point of being a philosopher anyway? Science is far more interesting.