we ourselves are fundamentally an emanation from this mysterious primordiality. — darthbarracuda
The idealist/panpsychist undertones are clear. — darthbarracuda
That the universe came from nothing, or creation ex nihilo, is prima facie, absurd. That the universe "came" into being seems to imply, from the semantics, that it came from or entered into somewhere or something that existed before. Before there was light, there was darkness - but this darkness is not "nothing". There must have already been something, a "firstness", "primary being", or some such eternal substance that holds up the rest of the architecture of existence as the foundations hold up a building, or the canvas displays the paint. — darthbarracuda
Precisely, nothing cannot be positively defined, for otherwise it would be something. — darthbarracuda
The "nothing" is the primal Being, the darkness surrounding the light. — darthbarracuda
In my mystical and esoteric moments I am drawn to the idea that what we call the world is a temporary dream in an endless sleep; — darthbarracuda
that consciousness is an insomnia in a population of dreamers, or a momentary divorce from the unconscious deep. — darthbarracuda
Lawrence Krauss would say that nothing is not actually nothing. — Greta
The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.
The question is really the root thought of all religion and mysticism, as well as philosophy. — gurugeorge
In my mystical and esoteric moments I am drawn to the idea that what we call the world is a temporary dream in an endless sleep; that consciousness is an insomnia in a population of dreamers, or a momentary divorce from the unconscious deep. The idealist/panpsychist undertones are clear. — darthbarracuda
The question of the OP seems to be about the something v. nothing. This is scientific question and not a being question. — tim wood
They are. H talks a lot about the way science ignores being in What is Metaphysics. — frank
In my mystical and esoteric moments I am drawn to the idea that what we call the world is a temporary dream in an endless sleep; that consciousness is an insomnia in a population of dreamers, or a momentary divorce from the unconscious deep. The idealist/panpsychist undertones are clear. — darthbarracuda
There's not 100% something in the metaphysical universe; there's some something, and some nothing. I hope that makes some sense; if not, let me know. — Noble Dust
Try to think about what "being" means — tim wood
What I am thinking however is that nothingness implies somethingness. To say "nothing exists" is a malformed proposition, an incoherent idea, for the fact is that if nothing existed, then this includes the fact or proposition that nothing exists. "Nothing exists" is a performative contradiction. — darthbarracuda
The question of Being - that there is something rather than nothing - is a special question that cannot be approached conventionally through the use of profane instruments or observation tout court. — darthbarracuda
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.