That should have been "there is something and so a lack of anything could not be the case". Introducing the past tense confuses the issue by introducing time.
It's not legitimate to jump from "there is something now" to "there has always been something". — Banno
What I'm trying to do is to imagine getting rid of everything in the universe and then trying to extrapolate what would be there if we could also get rid of the mind. — Roger
Note -- In QT, some external "excitation" or "perturbation", such as a Measurement or Choice triggers the transformation from Virtual to Actual, or Potential (hidden ; implicit) to Explicit. — Gnomon
If we say the laws of math, logic and physics exist always in some sort of Platonic realm, where is this realm and why is it there instead of nothing. — Roger
This "nothing" would be it; it would be the all. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? — Roger
"Virtual" particles. In calculations, they are treated as-if real, even though they are only potential : not yet realized. — Gnomon
The mathematical "points" in the field are described euphemistically as "Virtual" particles. — Gnomon
Yes, I think this is undeniable. — Philosophim
Time, space, distance, speed, direction, size, are all relative, . — Miller
and the play of the one eternal infinite substance — Miller
Causation is eternal. It never began. — Miller
But a wave in water is still composed of molecules, and emptyness between those molecules. For fields, we have electron fields. Yet they are still composed of individual electrons, and "nothingness" between them. — Philosophim
I have no doubt at a larger scale, it functions like a field. But, this does not mean its proven that there is nothing more granular if you examine that field at a closer level. — Philosophim
Logically, why could there not be "nothing"? — Philosophim
Doesn't nothing exist now? The fact that something can appear while nothing remains around it is not far fetched at all, considering we have many things that exist with mostly nothing around it. — Philosophim
spontaneously — Philosophim
3. Alphas would seem to be incredibly small. — Philosophim
it's a mental something (subjective idea, not objective object). — Gnomon
the meta-physical eternal TAO or G*D or LOGOS — Gnomon
Sounds like the TAO — Gnomon
Yes, but is the "One" physical & ever-changing, or meta-physical & omni-potential? — Gnomon
Is that what psychics "see" as the human Aura? — Gnomon
So the answer is Be Here Now? Don't worry about what was, or will be. Sufficient unto the day . . . . . . . — Gnomon
But those who suggest a Multiverse or Many Worlds alternative would be embarrassed to respond with "so is my Multiverse". That sounds too much like "my Material god-substitute versus your Spiritual God". — Gnomon
And physicality would logically require an infinite regression of world-cycles in space-time. — Gnomon
His outlandish ideas opened the door to Quantum Theory, which like quicksand has undermined the ancient Atomic Theory with invisible intangible Mathematical Fields as the fundamental reality of Physics. — Gnomon
physical Brains that mysteriously generate invisible mind-fields are ultimately composed of, not things per se, but incorporeal relationships between things. — Gnomon
why are we here? What should we do now that we are here? And how should we live? — Gnomon
Einstein's idealized Block Universe is indeed pictured as eternal, but it's also static : nothing new ever happens. Instead, all possibilities exist simultaneously & forever as inert potentials. In the dynamic Real physical world, that's impossible. But, in an Ideal Meta-physical realm, it's not only possible, but also logical (sequential cause & effect) ; as Plato implied in his descriptions of LOGOS. — Gnomon
Yes, but . . . the problem with the Multiverse conjecture is the same old Eternal Regress that you find hard to accept in anthro-morphic god-models. Also, how could something that is constantly changing and evolving be self-existent? That's the same old tower-of-turtles teaser. — Gnomon
Every-Thing encompasses all possible worlds. — Gnomon
Enfernity" : similar to Einstein's "Block-Time" or "Space-Time", but in a holistic sense, timeless & spaceless. — Gnomon
Yes, the omnipotential One is indeed timeless, spaceless, and super-posed. But the existence of our world implies that something transformed that omnidirectional Potential into an evolving world --- to collapse the superposition. — Gnomon
My own worldview is still monistic, but the "single substance" is now invisible Information, not tangible matter. — Gnomon
Yes. And posters on this forum are still arguing about such non-physical non-sense, such as Life or Death. — Gnomon
Quantum scientists never actually see anything in the quantum realm, they infer such things as Quarks & Quantum Fields from mathematical reasoning. Even the so-called "particles" of QFT are "virtual" (i.e. potential or imaginary or Platonic forms). — Gnomon
human condition — Gnomon
True, but trivial. — Gnomon
What we dialog about on The Philosophy Forum is literally "non-sense" and "beyond physical". Look at the topics --- how many are about "something physical"?
Metaphysics is all about Non-Sense. It's what feckless philosophers do : talk about things-that-are-not-things, but ideas-about-things. And when Poets write about Feelings, Qualities, Love, and other illusions & delusions, they are also doing Metaphysics. Philosophers and Poets don't build monuments or cure cancer. All they do is spout abstract non-sense to each other. Are you guilty of such extra-sensory time-wasting? :joke: — Gnomon
NOT STUFF. Not an object, not a thing. — Wayfarer
I think the idea that you are reaching for is not first cause but brute fact. — SophistiCat
It's not just "religious thinkers" who extend their inquiring minds beyond the limited scope of space-time. Many non-religious scientists are also not willing to be bound by physical restraints and provable postulations, when their imagination can make quantum leaps into the Great Unknowable beyond the Big Bang beginning. String Theory, Big Bounce, Multiverse, Many Worlds, Bubble Universes, etc. Can those conjectures be dismissed as "religious non-sense", simply because they are literally "super-natural" (outside of knowable Nature) and "hyper-physical" (meta-physical) and "infinite" (external to space-time)? — Gnomon
Was that of your own making or taken from somewhere? — Philosophim
Any thoughts? — TiredThinker
Yes! Isn't that neat? Opposed to multiverse theory being something we entertain for fun, it becomes something we can view as a logically likely reality. — Philosophim
