This makes me think of a Marilyn Manson song called mOBSCENE

I guess if you're applying Epicurus to this he could say
1) there are multiple gods instead of 1 god
2) he could say that death is nothing to be feared of ... however ... we do moral things ... so that we later don't experience a guilty conscious ... so maybe in this sense Epicurus could say that while some children may die because nothing could be done for them (nothing to fear) ... those who maybe had the capability to help or had a calling to help may experience a guilty conscious, so they ought to help.
3) he may also say that while gods exist they don't partake in human activities , so the idea of Gods good will directed at everything may not be supported by Epicurus

This is my understanding and I had to review Epicurus ... and I could be way off

Did you forget about religion and the widespread belief in evil spirits? The word "deamon" also means an [evil] spirit I believe. What about belief in bodily humors as a basis for disease? — TheMadFool

Yeah I like this. This is interesting to research.

It's possible that Socrates was kidding about the daemon, or pandering to popular superstition. But he may have simply used the most common term of the time for an "inner voice". Today we have other ways to describe such inward guidance, such as Intuition or SuperEgo. So, Susan could just tell the psychiatrist that she had a "feeling", not a literal voice. — Gnomon

Yeah I guess in that sense there'd would have to be a distinction by what is truly meant:

- is there an external voice aside from one's one mind (in daemonic sense)
- It was a voice like schizophrenia that is a product of one's own mind and it could be mistaken for daemonic sign
- Socrates was not telling the truth
- Socrates was referring to a feeling
- Socrates meant inner conscience
- Socrates was referring to something that we today can describe as intuition or Superego
- Or some combination of these

let's put a Cartesian skepticism label on it.

However, we can reply back that it is impossible for simple space NOT to exist. It’s inconceivable that simple space CANNOT exist. No matter what, there must always be simple space.

So perhaps if we tried to apply zero to the external world, we could eliminate everything BUT simple space. (Cartesian skepticism) — telex

So it looks like what we’ve done here is eliminated possibilities but we never answered any questions about “why”?

It seems that the first question is -> why is a black void, void of anything or infinite empty simple space equals to the definition of nothing. In a counterpoint , some could say nothing = zero. Zero means no space, no simple space, no black voids void of anything.

However, we can reply back that it is impossible for simple space NOT to exist. It’s inconceivable that simple space CANNOT exist. No matter what, there must always be simple space.

So perhaps if we tried to apply zero to the external world, we could eliminate everything BUT simple space. (Cartesian skepticism)

So if we tried to say that nothing is nothing, a zero, where nothing exists (even simple space) -> we can always say that, we can never eliminate the existence of simple space.

So what we have here is → (including simple space) 0 = 0 (including simple space)
We can also say that → 0 ≠ 0 (including simple space)
We can also say that → (excluding simple space) 0 = 0 (excluding simple space)

So we can always say that 0 = 0
In another theoretical sense, we could have 0 (including simple space).

So it seems we can say that → 0-1=x; or x = -1
We can also say that → 0 (including simple space) - 1 = x; or x = an approximation of infinity [since we can say that simple space is infinite]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next question
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The other question we have is “is simple space the kind of thing that can have motion?”
And “why does it have motion?”

Previously we tried to divide simple space in half (in the example with a katana) and the result was one side goes infinitely to the left and the other side goes infinitely to the right. So we can say that they are balanced.

However, it seems like we can go further than this. We could say that it appears simple space is the end of all regression, so theoretically we CANNOT divide simple space, because there’s nowhere else to regress.
So then we can ask → why does simple space have motion?

Perhaps we should consider what infinity implies about itself in “totality” of itself. Perhaps it is the case that the human mind is unable to understand or grasp infinity, because the human mind is finite.

However it seems that maybe if we tried to say something about infinity, we can ask - what number is infinity? Is it an odd number or is it an even number (and we can ascribe more complex mathematical qualities to it as well).

Is infinity an approximately infinitely large even number or an approximately infinitely large odd number? (222222^2222222 or 33333333^3333333) (in addition to other mathematical qualities of infinity)

It seems the answer to this is BOTH. It seems we can say that infinity is both an odd and even number. (in addition to other mathematical qualities of infinity)

So what does this say about infinite simple space and motion? We can say that infinite simple space is BOTH an odd and an even number (in addition to other mathematical qualities of infinity). What does this mean? It seems that simple space being BOTH an odd and an even quantity (in addition to other mathematical qualities of infinity) could imply some kind of instability in simple space and thereby lead to motion.

So when we ask why is there motion or instability? We can say that infinity is both an odd and an even number. (and we can also ascribe other mathematical qualities to infinity)

we can also say that we are being way too blunt about infinity here and we'd need to discuss more mathematical qualities, properties, previous scholarly inquiries about infinity in this discussion.

So it looks like what we "weaved" here is:
Epicurus
Newton
Einstein
NASA
Descartes

I found this on standford encylopedia about Newton's idea of space:

"Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable."

so I guess when I mention "simple space" i can say that it's related to the idea of Newtons concept of absolute space (minus the immovable part, because now we are considering: "is this the kind of thing that has motion")

I guess there was another possibility not mentioned relating to original OP:

in relation to - "is this the kind of thing that has motion?"

The possibilities are:
1)ALL motion
2) Motion and Not-motion
3)Not-Motion

and the possibility of (1) 'ALL motion' is negated by:

1) Infinity implies a presence everywhere and in every conceivable place, therefore, in this sense the ‘fabric of simple space’ is “not in motion”, because it has nowhere to expand to, since It’s already everywhere.

Therefore, it can't ALL be in motion. So we are only left with (2) Motion and Not-motion

ah -- now I remember -- the idea of "a black void, void of anything" is an epicurian type idea (greek atomists)

the idea of simple space relating to Netwon - i'd have to read up on that - I haven't looked there

EDIT:
I just realized something: when we get to the question - "is this the kind of thing that has motion?"

It seems we have two possibilities here INSTEAD of one:

First possibility is in the main OP.

This is the second possibility:

On the other hand we can say both motion and not-motion is only 1 possibility. The OTHER possibility is that --> infinity does not imply both motion and not-motion, we can say that we are only assuming that because one part is NOT in motion, the other part must be in motion. Therefore, NOT-motion can apply to everything.

So the argument can look like this:

1) Infinity implies a presence everywhere and in every conceivable place, therefore, in this sense the ‘fabric of simple space’ is “not in motion”, because it has nowhere to expand to, since It’s already everywhere.
2) We CANNOT assume that just because (1) has no motion, then the internal framework must have motion. So it could be that there is no motion in the internal framework. (Perhaps we are only seeing motion because some "mind" that is not in motion has in some way "thought" us into reality)

HOWEVER -> it seems like we can eliminate this entire second possibility, because "I am a thinking thing that has thoughts" (Descartes idea: ergo sum), and it would seem that thoughts require motion like an exchange of information between certain parts of my mind. It seems that without exchange of information in my mind or "movement of information in my mind," I would have no thoughts. Therefore, there must be motion. (unless we can conceive some other way a mind can work ... then we are left with two possibilities instead of one ... one possibility would lead us to motion/collision and the other possibility would lead us to completely "stillness" ... like a "still" mind that can hallucinate us into thinking we exist)

One can no longer be certain to any reasonable degree — Torus34

"And the game never ends ... " :) [but I guess you could say the game does end when the card is revealed .. or you could say you never actually know if it is the card you are looking at, perhaps the simulation configured "that" card in such a way that if you peel away the top layer, it will be a completely new card or the simulation makes a card that can be infinitely peeled away to reveal any of the 52 cards in a deck]

Thanks for the response, I was thinking about how to approach this.

^^

edit: someone could also say - "the game never ends when the whole world depends on a turn of a friendly card" - a.p.p.

How does one describe the territory? — Valentinus

So it could be a thing that could be known to you, but exceptionally unclear to an outside observer. However, it could also be questioned - what is it meant by "known?" Do you have the kind of knowledge and ability to rationalize this issue? Perhaps you don't and you've made a mistake, and even if you didn't, you have no reasonable basis to reach your conclusion. Perhaps you do have that kind of knowledge or experience, however you could come into conflict with expert authority on the matter.

Factually, Socrates vehemently defended himself at his last trial. I have a vague feeling you're mixing him up with another allegedly existing philosopher who also wrote no words and we only know about his thoughts due to his students' writings. This other philosopher reportedly uttered no words at his trial. — god must be atheist

Ok, that makes sense. :eyes:

The patient can be released, and followed up by Dr. Hyppocrates. And our opinion at this time is that Mr. Socrates is fit to stand trail. (What was he trailing?) — god must be atheist

Sounds good. (Trailing a lawyer who was trailing an ambulance, driven by Dr. Hyppocrates?)

Very interesting. Thanks.

But time travel is an insane idea! :razz: — unenlightened

In VR not so much, in the "true" external world, probably.

Btw ... nice link.

This makes me think of a NOFX song called "bath of least resistance"

How about this -- there is something else that controls our desires. Rationality has been the center of this human ability to go against our desires. — Caldwell

:up:

This is a really broad question but I will keep it short. I have recently finished reading Spinoza's Ethics and one of the things he tried to push is the idea that free will is just an illusion. I have heard of this idea many times before from different philosophers and I generally agree with it by now. I have for now settled with the argument that we cannot control our desires which guide our decisions, thus we are not really free. Now my question is what does the absence of freedom mean for ethics and how can our actions be judged if we cannot really control them. — Leiton Baynes

Perhaps you would want to ask what could be true of reality?

1) We are in a dream or a simulation, which does not allow us to have free will. However, if we were outside the dream or a simulation, we would have free will.

2) We are in a dream or a simulation, which does not allow us to have free will. However, if we were outside the dream or a simulation, we would have free will. Nonetheless, at times, a higher being like God (or creator of the simulation) interferes, and allows us to have free will.

3) We are in a dream or a simulation, which does not allow us to have free will. However, if we were outside the dream or a simulation, we would have partial free will, due to a presence of a higher being, like God, who partially controls our free will.

4) We are in a dream or a simulation, which does not allow us to have free will. However, if we were outside the dream or a simulation, we would still have no free will, due to a presence of a higher being, like God, who completely controls our free will.

5) Regardless of whether or not we are in a simulation, we have complete free will (but maybe we could think that we don't because we don't realize the minds full potential), and there could or could not be a higher being, nonetheless, if there were one, it would give us complete free will.

6) Regardless of whether or not we are in a simulation, in either case, we have no free will due to our desires.

7) Regardless of whether or not we are in a simulation, we have partial free will and perhaps there are things we can and cannot control due to our desires.

8) Regardless of whether or not we are in a simulation, we are born with partial free will, however, we are able to control our free will by further realizing the minds potential.

And other possibilities, like a combination of these or something new.

When you ask the question, "does the deck contain a blue jack" ? ... perhaps it makes sense to focus on the response: "I don't know?"

Does "I don't know" mean that I don't know whether the dealer is trying to trick me.

Does "I don't know" mean that I don't know whether I'm in a simulation, and even if the dealer is trying to trick me, in that moment, the simulation could place or remove a blue jack, surprising both the dealer and you.

Maybe the joke here could be that neither the dealer nor you were aware of the green queen and perhaps it was the simulation who had the final laugh :)

Oops!

I suggested the wrong book. The suggested 'starter' book is Analytic Philosophy: A very short introduction, by Michael Beaney.

Sorry for the error.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. — Torus34

Definitely, thanks! I'll take a look at it as well.

Just because you keep repeating that claim doesn't make it true.

So far you have neither demonstrated that your conception of Nothingness is actually a priori in any strict sense, nor that a priori reasoning is even a legitimate method here.

But if you're not interested, that's fine. It's still a worthy topic. :up: — apokrisis

You've presented quantum mechanics. That is empiricism. It's even the quote you posted, it said these scientists are empiricists.

A a priori conception of nothingness is not empiricism.

My answer will always be the same. These arguments don't clash head on.

That is just a formula you keep repeating to duck the points I've made. You have yet to justify it as a reasonable position to take - a priori, or otherwise, — apokrisis

The points you've made are grounded in empiricism. If the arguments don't clash head on, there's no reason for me to argue further.

Human thought goes nowhere unless it ties the two together. — apokrisis

I don't believe we need to tie anything together. This is very simple. You present empiricism. And my argument is for a priori.

What you are denying is that you are expressing a Newtonian era conception of nothingness — apokrisis

There can be similarities, however, this argument is for a priori. Your arugment is for empiricism.

So you can see I am taking a perfectly "a priori reasoned" approach here. I say if you are arguing a principle, you will want to take it to its most general extreme. If one direction, then why not any number? If a direction, then why not an action, and thus also any number of actions? — apokrisis

I don't believe you are arguing for a perfect a priori reasoning. Sure, you can say it goes in one line. But that's again your interpretation of this.

And again, the quote you presented says "Empirically minded physicists." Quantum physics is an empiricist point of view. This is a a priori argument. The argument for quantum mechanics does not clash head on with this argument.

But I've pointed out that your a priori reasoning is a straight reflection of 1600s empiricism. — apokrisis

I believe I've used empirical examples, but have maintained a priori reasoning.

It seems like what you're saying is that since my argument is grounded in a priori but quantum mechanics is grounded in empiricism, you are attempting to make my argument into an empiricist argument, so that you are able to argue with it head on.

I don't believe you need to do this. I think you can state your pro-argument for quantum mechanics, however, I must once again mention that this discussion is for a priori. They are not the same arguments.

However, I can still consider your argument for quantum mechanics as worthwhile.

Maybe what folk mean here is that quantum theory can't be understood in classical terms? There is no point banging your head against that particular wall. — apokrisis

I'm not sure if your summary of the article is accurate.

This is something direct from that NY Times article titled "Even Physicists Don't Understand Quantum Mechanics." [Worse they don't seem to want to understand it]:

"But what is the wave function? Is it a complete and comprehensive representation of the world? Or do we need additional physical quantities to fully capture reality, as Albert Einstein and others suspected? Or does the wave function have no direct connection with reality at all, merely characterizing our personal ignorance about what we will eventually measure in our experiments?

Until physicists definitively answer these questions, they can’t really be said to understand quantum mechanics ... few modern physics departments have researchers working to understand the foundations of quantum theory. On the contrary, students who demonstrate an interest in the topic are gently but firmly — maybe not so gently — steered away, sometimes with an admonishment to “Shut up and calculate!” Professors who become interested might see their grant money drying up, as their colleagues bemoan that they have lost interest in serious work."

My argument is that we have to start from where we are as the thing we are certain about.

So if we are certain that there is no such thing as an empty spacetime of any orderly extent - because quantum theory actually works as our best description of nature — apokrisis

Any serious metaphysics would start from the physics of today. — apokrisis

I guess on one hand you could say this - there was a New York times article in 2019 titled: "Even Physicists Don't Understand Quantum Mechanics." [Worse they don't seem to want to understand it]

But again all of this grounded in empiricism. Perhaps again a priori reasoning is, in my opinion, the better justification vs. empiricism based in quantum mechanics. We can employ much doubt about quantum mechanics and in a sense not be certain about it. (i.e. doubt, skepticism, problems in empiricism)

However, I definitely believe your opinion about quantum mechanics is worthwhile to consider.

Now that I think about your post more. :chin: I have another comment ...

Rather than something from nothing, or something from something, the third option is something from everything — apokrisis

Perhaps this is already the case from OP. If nothingness is ad infinitum (infinite simple space fabric), from which everything is "molded" into - an ordered state (or a certain state), then something from everything equates to something from ad infinitum nothing. As in this sense, this ad infinitum nothing is everything.

Do you emphasise the quantum surprise that even an empty spacetime void can fluctuate - produce virtual particle pairs without violating the classical laws of energy conservation?

Or do you instead emphasise the fact that this empty spacetime void is what eventually emerged from the Planckscale Big Bang as a classical suppression of quantum fluctuations? Our Universe is a definite structured something because its thermal flow has decohered all that inherent quantum uncertainty. The radically indeterminate has become the overwhelmingly determinate in terms of the physics. — apokrisis

I'm afraid I cannot emphasize any of these things in relation to my argument, as they are once more grounded in empiricism. However, aside from that, I do like the quantum surprise - that even an empty spacetime void can fluctuate and produce virtual particles.

However I could say that once again, we could insert doubt here. After the fluctuation, can we most certainly be sure that the next step are a pair of virtual particles? Perhaps there is one step or a million steps that we are missing between the fluctuation and emergence of virtual particles. And these steps are not "caught" by scientific instruments. Or maybe not. I have no experience with such instruments. :)

quantum laws forbid any coherent spacetime from being actually empty of stuff. — apokrisis

Thank you for your lengthy and well thought out comment. I will have to read through your post multiple times, as there is lots of information there.

What I can say so far. I guess on the empirical view regarding quantum mechanics you could mention a book :) -> "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss (a theoretical physicist). (It's been a very long time since I've looked at it).

However, I'm sure that in the book Lawrence does not simply discuss a completely empty void, but mentions quantum fields and virtual particles constantly popping in and out of existence.

Finally, I can say that this is nonetheless an empirical argument. It's still a good argument. Although here, we could say that an empirical argument is going against a a priori point of view. So, maybe they don't necessarily clash head on :) (i guess i do use some empirical examples, like a sub-particle, etc .. )

More than one noted philosopher in the past has dealt with the concept of nothing. One, if I recall correctly, considered it of great importance in mathematics, where the concept of nothing, zero, as the start of natural numbers resides. You might find the book, A Brief History of Analytic Philosophy by Mr. Stephen Schwartz of interest. — Torus34

Definitely. I will take a look. Thanks!

If, however, you are talking about nothing becoming something -- specifically an object as opposed to a concept, that's a horse of another color. — Torus34

Hello. Thanks!

Ok I think I see what you're saying.

Based on the argument I presented, that would depend on our definition of nothing.

If we could equate our unconsciousness with reality beyond, should we then care about it? — Eremit

I guess you are saying that part of our mind that is unconscious somehow extends to that which we cannot perceive in our every day life. That what we can perceive is the visible universe, that what we cannot perceive is something beyond, like something that's outside the universe.

I guess maybe you can say what we cannot perceive are some kind of minds or mind or an eternal mind that may reside outside of the universe.

Spiritual things could reside outside of the universe.

Somehow our unconscious mind extends to these non-perceivable things? Does our unconscious mind "touch" these things somehow or is it "connected" to these things some how?

Maybe. I don't know. Maybe the unconscious mind is more of a wanderer then the conscious mind. And it's always unconsciously wondering about these things.

Should we concern ourselves with these things?

I think that whether you think we should or we shouldn't, your mind will naturally concern itself with these things (both conscious and unconscious mind). Maybe not now, but at some point it will. And then it will grow tired of it, because maybe it cannot find a meaningful solution or maybe it did find a meaningful solution, and is now ready to move on to other things. Like paying your bills or something. And then the cycle will continue again. Your mind (conscious or unconscious) will again concern itself with other-worldly things and then again the time will come when it's time to mow the grass. Etc ...

Edit: to add to this. Maybe eventually, if you continue to think about reality beyond reality, you can achieve a certain frame of mind. So maybe there is a reason to do it. Or maybe not. Idk.

Let's toss the set of null sets into the pot, shall we? — Torus34

Null set - would that mean that the state of nothingness has a measure of zero? Or absolute zero?

What would that imply about ad infinitum? In this case, zero is not infinity. So nothingness can't be infinite, if it's a null set or a zero. In that case, the argument may fall apart :)

Could we say negative infinity?

Or perhaps could we say that while we can toss a null set into the pot ... when we conceive nothingness, there appears to be an ad infinitum to it nonetheless. Or we can say that maybe zero is zero, however, does nothing = zero and zero = nothing. Maybe there's more here?

Or maybe I misunderstood your comment.

Thanks! I appreciate your comment. I must nonetheless leave room for "something from nothing" argument. It is an argument brought up not only here but philosophy in general.

But what? If there has never been a thing created out of nothing, what possible substitute could there be? — Kenosha Kid

I was thinking that maybe one of the readers, if they wanted to, could make a suggestion.

Do you have any non-religious problem with the idea that there was always been something, and that that something was no intended? — Kenosha Kid

In this discussion I am making the case that you could say that "nothing" is actually "something," and therefore, in this sense something has always been without any intention. However, in another sense, I am saying that this nothing, could still be interpreted by some as nothing. And therefore, some may still say, that nothing can produce something (Is this trying to have it's cake and eat it too? maybe someone will say that)

The non-religious problem is the second problem with a pre-face: "something from something" (right at the very beginning) ... I guess I wouldn't say I have a problem with it like I'm angry at it, but it is a paradoxical concern to me :)