Every time we predict or anticipate events, we posit a perspective outside the ‘flow of time’. And every time we test those predictions, we edit and refine a relational structure that perceives the block universe in potentiality. Time isn’t an illusion - it’s just structured differently in the block universe. — Possibility

I don't understand what this means. It takes time to make predictions and they are all happening in your brain, not "outside" the flow of time. At best, you are talking about imagining that you are outside the flow of time, not some ontologically real view somewhere outside of your own head, and "outside of time".

Potential is just another type of imagining, akin to predictions (they may just be the same thing). To say that something that hasn't happened has the potential to happen just means that you predict it could happen, but there would have to be some other pre-existing conditions. A ball on the table has the potential to fall off of it, but only if it's pushed, pulled, or acted on in some way, and until it is acted on in some way, it will stay on the table and the potential remains an imaginary construct.

You can regard a brain as a lump of grayish, convoluted tissue. This is the third person perspective of the brain.
Or, you can experience it as a rich internal universe. This is the first person perspective. — hypericin

Are you saying that the rich internal universe IS the brain, just from a different vantage point? Where is this (first-person) vantage point relative to the other vantage point (third-person)? Are you a realist or solipsist? Is there a "rich external universe" that corresponds to this "rich internal universe"? Using these terms, "internal" vs "external", presupposes dualism.

The hard problem is to reconcile these two perspectives. In particular, it seems that no matter how much you elaborate the working of the brain scientifically, from the third person, there is no conceivable way to make the leap to explaining the first person experience.

The answer may somehow involve substance dualism. But posing the problem certainly does not presuppose it. — hypericin

The problem is in thinking that the way the brain/mind appears in the third person is how the brain/mind really is.

You are right that there are far more configurations of things than of nothing, making something more likely over time. — Kenosha Kid

Using this example, there are far more configurations of god than of not-god, making the existence of god more likely over time.

It's not the possible number of configurations that exist that make something more likely than not. The possible configurations are all just manifestations of our ignorance of the actual configuration. It is pre-existing conditions that make something more likely than not, like the actual number of balls in a jar, which hand you used to choose a ball, how deep you push your hand into the jar, whether or not you had your eyes closed, etc.

We're discussing statistics, not epistemology. That is, we are discussing probabilities as they might still apply even in the absence of holders of beliefs, the sorts of probabilities applicable in discussing the early universe, for instance. — Kenosha Kid

Then probabilities are tools for discussing the early universe? Are probabilities useful for discussing how the early universe actually was, or how we believe it was? How do you tell the difference?

Why are probabilties applicable for discussing things that we don't know, or can't observe, and not applicable to things that we know or do observe? Seems to me that this distinction shows that probabilities are epistimelogical. What is the probability that the sun rose this morning? What is the probability that it will rise tomorrow?

If you are able to eliminate all doubt, would you still have probabilities? It seems to me that doubt/ignorance and probabilities go hand in hand. If you eliminated your doubt and there still exist probabilities, then did you really eliminate all of your doubt? It seems to me that doubt/ignorance and probabilities are inherently linked, or even one and the same, as probabilities are degrees of doubt/belief. If the probability of something occurring is 99%, then the probability of it not occurring is 1%. The 99% represents your belief, and the 1% represents your doubt.

Nothing itself is not actually held in the mind like an apple is. — TheMadFool

An apple is not held in the mind either. The concept of an apple is held in the mind. You can hold an apple in your hand, but when you aren't holding an apple in your hand, are you necessarily holding nothing in your hand?

When you think of an apple, and then don't think of an apple, are you thinking of nothing when not thinking of an apple, or simply thinking about something else?

Let's say that there is a probability that the sun rises tomorrow. What is that probability? How is it determined? Let's say that you assigned the probability 99%. When the sun rises tomorrow, is the probability still 99%? If not, what changed and why? What are we actually talking about when we talk about the probabilty of the sun rising tomorrow - our knowledge, or some objective feature of the sun?

Why do we only assign probabilities to future events, and not past ones or present ones, if probabilities were objective?

Problem is if there were nothing there'd be no probability, and once there is probability there is already something. — Janus

It's not just that. Nothing is an imaginary concept. Nothing is actually something - an idea.

What about zero probability (ie. impossibility)? Is impossibility something? Like nothing, impossibility is a concept, not something that exists ontologically, as what is impossible, by definition, cannot exist.

The brain, uniquely, is an object that can be experienced from either perspective. — hypericin

So I'm experiencing my brain? Here I thought I was experiencing the world the whole time. Is your post in my brain or in the world that my brain accesses?

No, there is no presupposition of dualism.
There are two perspectives, first person, and third person. — hypericin

Sounds like dualism is presupposed to me.

The first person experience is a manifestation of the way in which sensory information is presented. Sensory information includes information about location relative to the body. A perspective, or view, IS information about location relative to something else.

Third-person information does not include information about location relative to something else, which is why we call it a view from nowhere. Which view we talk about depends on what our present goal is - knowing about location relative to the body, or not.

Yes, that's an important point I'm grappling with at the moment. The concept is different to the thing the concept is about. For instance the concept human is not itself a human. — TheMadFool

Right. You can point to humans. Can you point to god or nothing? Try doing the same thing with the concepts of god and nothing. There are conceptions that are about the world and conceptions that are not (like imaginings). Which one is god and nothing - imaginary or real?

The concept of human stems from the actual experiece of the existence of humans. You probably would not have the concept of human without having first experienced humans.

God and nothing are never experienced. So the concept of god and nothing do not stem from the experience of the existence of such things. They are manifestations in the mind to account for what you do experience (in the case of god), or simply a misuse of language (in the case of nothing). As you have already shown in the other thread, nothing is not necessarily the opposite of something. As a matter of fact, you have yet to show that nothing is the opposite of anything, much less that it exists ontologically.

That's not right. For someone inside the block universe, time does flow. — Banno

Because they are part of the flow, or one of the things that flows (changes), relative to the flow of the other things inside the block. It's not time that flows, rather it is the objects inside the block that flows. Time flowing isn't the illusion. Time itself is the illusion.

Does it even make sense to ponder the existence of an observer outside the "flow of time"? Observing itself is a "flow" (change). It's "flow" all the way down.

I've just learned from experience how to spot a patented HH derailment and don't think this thread is an appropriate place to explain why thought experiments don't need exhaustive blueprints. If you're interested in learning about probability theory, go and do so. — Kenosha Kid

This is typical KK. Are you and Banno long lost twins?

Why don't you learn about epistemological probability. Probabilities are simply degrees of belief.

You got there in the end, well done! — Kenosha Kid

I was already there in my first reply to unenlightened. It just took you a while to realize it.

And I'm telling you: the mechanics of a thought experiment are irrelevant to the thought experiment. That's what makes it a thought experiment. — Kenosha Kid

Except when the mechanics of probability and randomness are what are being questioned.

Domain of discourse. — TheMadFool

I should also add that discourse in one domain should not contradict the discourse in another domain. All knowledge must be integrated.

Right. So, computational logic and propositional logic only differ in the rules they use to refer to, or express, beliefs. You can still make commands with propositional logic and make propositions with computational logic, just using different symbols, like you do when using other languages. Proposition also means a program or plan about how to go about doing something.

So, unenlightened hasn't shown us any meaningful distinction when talking about what symbols and rules can be used to refer to, or express beliefs. It seems that symbol use and beliefs may be inherently related. After all, you need to have beliefs about how some symbol is to be used when using them.

The thought experiment sought to prove nothing. It was meant as an illustration. Ill-advisedly, perhaps, given that it is generally impossible to determine from your responses whether you've understood anything or not. Alternatively, I could just response: go and read some basic probability theory, but you'd probably question your text book's existence :D — Kenosha Kid

I just dont see whats so difficult in explaining your use of terms . Random is a term that assumes that your choices are probable, so you didnt really do much thinking in your thought experiment. Just saying.

Domain of discourse. — TheMadFool

Discourse and ideas are still about something, even when talking and thinking about nothing. Zero is just another concept about the quantity of something. 0 what? 0 is meaningless unless you are talking about the number of something.

Uh huh. Well if you want to demonstrate rather than insist on it, be my guest. But since it's not relevant, don't expect a rapt audience. — Kenosha Kid

Its your thought experiment with words that already assume what your thought experiment is trying to prove.

Something is at least ONE. Mathematically Something >= 1. If that's true not something < 1 and that's ZERO and ZERO's nothing. It appears that something has a quantitative definition and so, I suppose, should everything and nothing. — TheMadFool

If you have five pigs in a pen and I steal all of your pigs, you don't have nothing. Air now fills the space where the pigs were. You have yet to show that not something necessarily means nothing. You have yet to show that nothing is anything more than an idea. What does the scribble, "nothing" refer to?

But unfortunately for Einstein, and Harry, there’s no way in which ‘things truly are’ — Wayfarer

That's odd, because you seem to be saying that the way things truly are is that Einstein and I are wrong.

Something is at least ONE. Mathematically Something >= 1. If that's true not something < 1 and that's ZERO and ZERO's nothing. It appears that something has a quantitative definition and so, I suppose, should everything and nothing. — TheMadFool

But you just showed that NOT one bachelor does not equal nothing, but one of something else. You're moving the goal posts.

That out of the way, it needs to be pointed out that nothing in the metaphysical sense refers to the absence of physical stuff, — TheMadFool

Does this mean that your imagination is nothing?


And I'm telling you that you are wrong.

I'm asking, how is something randomly chosen?

So what? Different languages have different rules for the same symbols. We can still translate the meaning and end up saying the same thing in different ways. Computational logic can be translated to propositional logic and vice versa. The point is that the rules for using symbols to refer to beliefs is arbitrary.

It's basic probability theory. Imagine 10 differently coloured balls in a bag, You select one at random. — Kenosha Kid

How does one select one at random? If we knew all the pre-existing conditions, like the position of the balls vs. your hand. If you knew all the pre-existing conditions, you'd know which ball you'd pick. It only seems random because you're ignorant if all the pre-existing conditions.

This all assumes that nothing is a possible option and MadFool has yet to show evidence that it is anything other than an idea.

An error is a fallacy.

Are you saying probability has more to do with us, specifically our ignorance rather than being a real feature of reality itself? — TheMadFool

Yes. Probabilities are just concepts related to our ignorance of the causal relationships of which we are talking about.

An example the book gives is radioactivity - there's no way of knowing, says the book, which particle will decay and when and that's just another way of saying chance is a feature of reality itself and not necessarily a matter of human ignorance as you seem to be suggesting. Then there's quantum physics which too, to my knowledge, exhibits probabilistic behavior and according to some sources this isn't because we're lacking the information that would make quantum physics non-probabilistic but because quantum physics is inherently probabilistic.

What say you? — TheMadFool

To say that there is no way of knowing indicates that we are definitely talking about ourselves and not some objective feature of reality. I guess the question is, how do we determine if probabilities are objective or subjective?

Probabilities are the chances some effect will occur given some pre-existing conditions (causes). So, you seem to be asking how likely something exists given some pre-existing conditions. What are those pre-existing conditions - something, or nothing?

Not a bachelor is not nothing because a bachelor is something. So, yes, not a bachelor is a married man. And...? — TheMadFool

What you said here is incorrect:

However not something is nothing. — TheMadFool

Then not something isn't necessarily nothing.

Explain yourself. Why "silly"? — TheMadFool

I did explain myself. I said, that I don't see how you could set out answering such a question. Why something as opposed to what - nothing? Didn't I already point out that "nothing" is just an idea, which is something, so "nothing" doesn't exist except as a thought in your mind.

Even if you were to somehow prove that nothing exists, you'd have to show how one is more likely than the other, which would require knowledge of what makes one more likely than the other, which can only be something, not nothing. It's a question whose concepts twist back upon itself, creating a paradox.

The probabilistic answer to the fundamental question of metaphysics I provided doesn't have as its conclusion that "something exists". As you rightly pointed out, we already know that. What it does or what I want it to do is provide an explanation as to why "something exists". — TheMadFool

Seems like a silly question to me. I don't see how you could even set out answering such a question.

However not something is nothing. — TheMadFool

Is not a bachelor a married man or nothing?

However, it does prove that the probability of something existing is greater than the probability of nothing. — TheMadFool

Probabilities are just ideas stemming from our ignorance. Reality just is a certain way. It's not more probable to be a certain way than another. It already is a certain way. How it is, is what we are ignorant of, therfore how it is is probabilistic in our eyes.

Your probabilistic answer doesn't provide anything that we didn't already know - that something exists.

And nothing is an idea, therefore nothing is something. Is a vacuum something or nothing?

You are right that there are far more configurations of things than of nothing, making something more likely over time. — Kenosha Kid

I don't see how this follows. How does the number of configurations of things make something more likely than nothing?

But time began, as far as we can tell, with things. — Kenosha Kid

Exactly. What came before determines what comes after. How does nothing begat something?

Not everything can't be nothing because not nothing isn't necessarily everything. Not nothing and not everything can both be in something. — TheMadFool

NOT some thing isnt necessarily nothing either, but can be some other thing. Prove that nothing is anything other than a thought - which is something.

Not everything isn't nothing, it's something. However not something is nothing. — TheMadFool

Not everything is not necessarily something. It could possibly be nothing as well.

I think the soundest concept of 'nothing' we can have is precisely this 0-dimensional Hilbert space of the inflaton field: this is not a nothing in which 'no thing' happens to exist, but the nothing in which the very possibility of a thing cannot exist, since there are precisely zero allowed states, not even static, empty ground states. — Kenosha Kid

Contradiction.

It is more accurate to say that there is always something. Even when thinking about the opposite of something, you are still thinking of something, even though that thought is about "nothing".

Do either of you dispute my claim that the logic of propositions is not the same as the logic of commands? — unenlightened

What are you trying to accomplish when using the logic of propositions vs. the logic of commands? Do both not express some sort if belief?

The assumption that he meant A to have some numerical value appears reasonable. Null pointer errors aren't very relevant to the discussion. — Kenosha Kid

but then it wouldn't be a contradiction, like they claimed.

There's a difference between everything and something and this becomes clear when we realize that something doesn't entail everything. — TheMadFool

Everything encompasses something.

Everything = All (some)things.

as if he never published. — Banno

The question was, "Was Galileo doing science before he published?"

I learned a long time ago, in a philosophy forum far, far away that you are more interested in hearing yourself talk than in actually trying to solve problems. That's why your threads are so long.

Equipossible =/= equiprobable — 180 Proof

The distinction is meaningless in regards to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. To say whether it is more or less likely that there is something rather than nothing requires you to know the likelihood of something, rather than nothing, being the case given a set of prior circumstances. Is the prior set of circumstances something or nothing? Is it something all the way down? If not, then how does something come from nothing? Is that possible or probable?

What's the opposite of nothing? Is it everything or something? — TheMadFool

Everything entails something.

1a. is about the nonexistence of things and 1b. is about the existence of nothing — TheMadFool

The latter is a contradiction. Nothing is not something that exists. One might say that existence is the opposite of nothing.

1. Nothing can exist can be interpreted in two ways:

1a. It's impossible for things to exist

1b. Nothing, itself, can exist — TheMadFool

Looks like both are saying the same thing.

The fundamental question of metaphysics is about interpretation 1a. it's impossible for things to exist, it's falsity specifically which is "it's possible for things to exist". Why? — TheMadFool

Not sure I'm really understanding your question. The absence of one thing doesn't mean nothing. It means something else. In other words, when you imagine something not existing, you don't imagine nothing existing, you imagine something else in its place (space and air, or maybe a bachelor if you were imagining a married man).

2. How do you know that "something can come from nothing" is wrong? — TheMadFool

Because its impossible. Its impossible to even think about how something could come from nothing, much less provide a coherent and useful explanation of how that would happen.