There's only the now — Limitless Science

You might like to comment on this post:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4158/nine-nails-in-the-coffin-of-presentism/p1

I've explained it already in this thread. I use "no beginning and no end" for eternity. Not everyone goes to high school. Try to explain things simple. Like I do.

But could my post help you in anyway?

But could my post help you in anyway? — Limitless Science

Well its an interesting post but I believe time has a start and end so it does not chime with the direction of my thoughts. For time to have no beginning or end, you need the concept of actual infinity to exist:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

It does not exist in the material world or maths. So I have concluded time has a start and end.

Yeah, time without a clock (watch) doesn't exist. Some unfortunately believe that there's a physical time. However it's just motion like energy and forces. Not time.
Time generally is a very complex subject. Due to so many illusions. You really have to put everything into question.

Yeah, time without a clock (watch) doesn't exist — Limitless Science

There is a fundamental law of the universe that is defined in terms of time, the speed of light (speed = distance / time). Time is not some human invention; every particle in the universe is bound by time.

Time is like a ruler. Yes it is made up by the people to make life easier. Don't confuse imaginary time with physical motion, energy and forces.

And I've got to say, how can they tell that the universe is expanding if they haven't even seen the edge of the universe yet? You can't say it's expanding if you don't know how big the universe is. This is not how math works!

I must tell you that I disagree with our space science.

how can they tell that the universe is expanding if they haven't even seen the edge of the universe yet? — Limitless Science

Red shift of distance galaxies increases the further they are away from us:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe

If you want to debate time, I'd suggest this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4158/nine-nails-in-the-coffin-of-presentism

No one can answer the question "why is there anything at all." The answer to the question "how is it that something exists as opposed to nothing," can be partly answered, since out of nothing, nothing comes, which simply means something must have always existed. But "why" this is the case, who knows? It can't be answered.

Because nothingness can't be. The word nothingness has no meaning without the existing things.

No one can answer the question "why is there anything at all. — LD Saunders

The Anthropic principle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Give a highly unsatisfactory pseudo-answer: There is something because there must be for us to be here.

It seems very unnatural to me that there is anything at all. A state of nothingness is what you would expect by default.

Denas99: Boy, the word irony must be lost on you. Talk about unsatisfactory pseudo-answers. Ok, gfo ahead and give us a rational, coherent explanation why nothing, as opposed to something, would be the default position? Good luck with that.

I forgot to mention something to the big bang theory. Even if they would see the edge of the universe, that still doesn't mean it's really the end! It could only be a few centillions light years big void in space. And I only took the biggest number I know of! You can do the same example with even a bigger number! Really anything below limitlessness works! :sweat:

You can't prove by observation how big the universe is. Theoretical science tops observation! But even if you can't understand why nothingness can't be. The exact opposite of nothingness actually says it all. It's limitless. No beginning and no end. Because what is everything? All existing things, including all different existing things. The all different existing things actually proves that it's limitless.

Ok, gfo ahead and give us a rational, coherent explanation why nothing, as opposed to something, would be the default position? — LD Saunders

I guess its Occam's Razor; the simplest solution is nothing. Then nothing needs explaining.

The fact there is something is quite shocking. Almost a point to the Theists I think; its enough to make you consider a supernatural explanation I mean.

Your answer, your explanation for why there's something instead of nothing is one of the most popular explanations. But it has a few problems that I'll get to farther down in this reply.

But part of what you said sounds like some discussion that we had here a while back.

I've proposed a metaphysics based on abstract facts. ...and said that it explains why there's something insteaad of nothing. I'll copy it to this thread, after I send this post. Anyway, someone asked why there are abstract facts.

The answer given was that if there were no facts, then it would be a fact that there are no facts.

But then someone said, "There could be a fact that says that there are no other facts, other than that one fact that there are no other facts."

But, for one thing, that would be a blatant brute fact, in need of an explanation. ...which would be impossible, because there'd be nothing to explain it by.

Besides, I claim that the various different systems of abstract facts are quite separate, isolated, and independent of eachother. ...so there can't be one fact that has jurisdiction or authority over whether there can be all those other completely separate, isolated and independent facts.
---------------------------
Anyway, to return to your answer, one problem of it is that it doesn't say what we could expect there to be, or how or why it's able to be. You said that there's everything. But plainly that's impossible. There aren't mutually contradictory facts. There aren't false propositions that are true.

So, what there is--in the describable metaphysical realm, because that's what we're talking about--is limited by non-contradiction. ...by logic.

But are you sure that there's more, in the describable metaphysical realm, than that logic?

Are you sure that, in the describable metaphysical realm, there's anything more "substantial", "substantive", "objectively-real", or "objectively-existent" than that? ...moreso than all the systems of abstract facts? ...in particular, moreso than all the abstract implications, and complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications?

(...where an implication is the implying of one proposition by another proposition, and an abstract implication is an implying of one hypothetical proposition by another.)

I don't claim that those abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things exist or are real, other than in the sense that we can speak of them and refer to them.

Anyway, next I'll post to this thread a more detailed description of and argument for my metaphysical proposal that our "physical" universe consists only of a complex system of abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things.

Michael Ossipoff

Why is there anything at all? Why not just nothing? Let's first define the exact opposite of nothingness! The exact opposite of nothingness is: 'everything existing' or 'all existing things'. Well, since I solved it, the answer lies within why nothingness can't be. Just imagine if there's nothing existing at all, how can the word nothingness mean anything? The word nothingness has no meaning if there's nothing existing at all. If there's nothing existing at all, the word nothingness can't exist either. If there isn't anything existing at all, there isn't anything that can support the fact that nothingness should be and not everything existing. There simply can't be nothing existing at all. We and everything around us exists without a beginning because nothingness can't be at all. — Limitless Science

First two premises that we all agree on:
.
1. We find ourselves in the experience of a life in which we’re physical animals in a physical universe.
.
2. Uncontroversially, there are abstract implications, in the sense that we can speak of and refer to them.
.
I claim no other “reality” or “existence” for them.
.
By “implication”, I mean the implying of one proposition by another. By “abstract implication”, I mean the implication of one hypothetical proposition by another hypothetical proposition.
.
So there are also infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with the many consistent configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions.
.
Among that infinity of complex hypothetical logical systems, there’s one that, with suitable naming of its things and propositions, fits the description of your experience in this life.
.
I call that your “hypothetical life-experience-story”. As a hypothetical logical system, it timelessly is/was there, in the limited sense that I said that there are abstract implications.
.
There’s no reason to believe that your life and experience are other than that hypothetical logical system that I call your hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
Just as I claim no “existence” or “reality” for abstract implications, so I claim no “existence” or “reality” for the complex systems of them, including your hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
Each of the infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things is quite entirely separate, independent and isolated from anything else in the describable realm, including the other such logical systems.
.
Each neither has nor needs any reality or existence in any context other than its own local inter-referring context.
----------------------------
Any “fact” in this physical world implies and corresponds to an implication.
.
“There’s a traffic-roundabout at the intersection of 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, you’ll encounter, there, a traffic-roundabout.”
---------------------------
Every “fact” in this physical world can be regarded as a proposition that is at least part of the antecedent of some implications, and is the consequent of other implications.
.
For example:
.
A set of hypothetical physical quantity-values, and a hypothetical relation among them (called a “physical hypothesis, theory or law) together comprise the antecedent of a hypothetical implication.
.
…except that one of those hypothetical physical quantity-values can be taken as the consequent of that implication.
.
A true mathematical theorem is an implication whose antecedent includes at least a set of mathematical axioms.
---------------------------
Instead of one world of “Is”…
.
…infinitely-many worlds of “If”.
.
We’re used to declarative, indicative, grammar because it’s convenient. But conditional grammar better describes our physical world. We tend to unduly believe our grammar.
--------------------------
You, as the protagonist of your hypothetical life-experience-story, are complementary with your experiences and surroundings in that story. You and they comprise the two complementary parts of that hypothetical story.
.
By definition that story is about your experience. It’s for you, and you’re central to it. It wouldn’t be an experience-story without you. So I suggest that Consciousness is primary in the describable realm, or at least in its own part(s) of it.
.
That’s why I say that you’re the reason why you’re in a life. It has nothing to do with your parents, who were only part of the overall physical mechanism in the context of this physical world. Of course consistency in your story requires that there be evidence of a physical mechanism for the origin of the physical animal that you are.
.
Among the infinity of hypothetical life-experience-stories, there timelessly is one with you as protagonist. That protagonist, with his inclinations and predispositions, his “Will to Life”, is why you’re in a life.
.
The requirement for an experience-story is that it be consistent. …because there are no such things as inconsistent facts, even abstract ones.
.
Obviously a person’s experience isn’t just about logic and mathematics. But your story’s requirement for consistency requires that the physical events and things in the physical world that you experience are consistent. That inevitably brings logic into your story.
.
And of course, if you closely examine the physical world and is workings, then the mathematical relations in the physical world will be part of your experience. …as they also are when you read about what physicists have found by such close examinations of sthe physical world and its workings.
.
There have been times when new physical observations seemed inconsistent with existing physical laws. Again and again, newly discovered physical laws showed a consistent system of which the previously seemingly-inconsistent observations are part. But of course there remain physical observations that still aren’t explained by currently-known physical law. Previous experience suggests that those observations, too, at least potentially, will be encompassed by new physics.
.
Likely, physical explanations consisting of physical things and laws that, themselves, will later be explained by newly-discovered physical things and laws, will be an endless open-ended process…at least until such time as, maybe, further examination will be thwarted by inaccessibly small regions, large regions, or high energies. …even though that open-ended explanation is there in principle.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Devans99: Like I stated, you'd fail. No, it is not the simplest position to say nothing should exist. That's simply an assertion you made without any support whatsoever.

Like I stated, you'd fail. No, it is not the simplest position to say nothing should exist. That's simply an assertion you made without any support whatsoever. — LD Saunders

I did have support from Occam's Razor: nothing is the simpler model; there are less moving parts; everything is explained for because there is nothing to explain.

Our universe contains massive complexity; can you not see how strange that should be? All this matter, energy, space-time and the physical rules that govern it. Why is it here? It so far removed from the simple solution of nothing.

So it could be God. In that something impossible has happened and there is something rather than nothing. What can you do but attribute the magic to some sort of Magician; IE God?

No, you don't have support from Occam's Razor. You merely made the assertion that Occam's Razor would support nothing existing over something existing, but that is false --- it's simply an assertion you have made without any foundational support. Something always existing is supported by the very fact that we exist now, and out of nothing, nothing comes, so, if anything Occam's Razor is against you.

Something always existing is supported by the very fact that we exist now, and out of nothing, nothing comes, so, if anything Occam's Razor is against you. — LD Saunders

Your not following the argument; the fact that we exist now, neither adds or distracts from the strangeness that there should be something rather than nothing.

Devans99: You aren't following the argument. You are simply claiming "I assert that there should be nothing as opposed to something; therefore, this must be true." That's not an argument of any kind. And Occam's Razor does not help you because the fact we exist now has to be used when trying to come up with the simplest explanation, and that means since out of nothing, nothing comes, Occam's Razor tells us, if anything, it is simpler to take the position that something always existed as opposed to the far more complicated one that somehow something came from absolute nothingness.

You are simply claiming "I assert that there should be nothing as opposed to something; therefore, this must be true." — LD Saunders

You are still not getting it:

- I am not asserting that there should be nothing rather than something
- I am asserting that its strange that there is something rather than nothing

I did have support from Occam's Razor: nothing is the simpler model; there are less moving parts; everything is explained for because there is nothing to explain. — Devans99

Correct, with the understanding that you're talking about the describable realm of metaphysics..

Our universe contains massive complexity; can you not see how strange that should be? All this matter, energy, space-time and the physical rules that govern it. Why is it here?

Good question.

It so far removed from the simple solution of nothing.

Yes. But what if you didn't believe in the objective-existence and objective-reality (whatever that would mean anyway) of this complex and seemingly arbitrary physical universe?

I've been describing and proposing a metaphysics of the describable, wherein this universe is only a complex system of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things.

...in other words "nothing", from the point of view of the Materialist.

Those abstract implications "are there" only in the sense that we can mention and refer to them. I claim no other "reality" or "existence" for them. ...or for this physical universe, Of course this physical universe is real and existent in its own context, and in the context of our hypothetical life-experience stories. ...which needn't have "reality" or "existence" other than in their own inter-referring context.

So it could be God. In that something impossible has happened and there is something rather than nothing. What can you do but attribute the magic to some sort of Magician; IE God?

Though I'm a Theist, I don't believe that it's necessary to explain describable metaphysics and its things (including this physical universe) outside of its own context, as a complex inter-referring hypothetical logical system.

In other words, the metaphysics of the describable explains itself in its own context. As for the relation and influence of larger Reality or God (though I don't use that word because of its anthropomorphic connotation) on that metaphysical system, I don't claim to know or have an explanation about that. Very little can be said about it.

Michael Ossipoff

Devans99: It's you who doesn't get it. By taking the position that it is strange that there is something as opposed to nothing, you are claiming, without any rational argument in support, that there should be nothing as opposed to something; otherwise, there would be nothing "strange" about us existing.

Nothingness cancels itself from math logic perspective. The word "nothingness" can't have a meaning without the existing things.

The answer is very simple. You can't grasp it because you think everything is complex and you need like an LHC/Cern to solve it! No you don't! It's as simple as gravity! If you let an object go, it will fall to the ground! It's as simple as that!

I like the comparison between the present moment and a hard drive, but why not take it a step forward and propose like Barber that time and motion are illusions and even the past and future? No time means there is no need to explain how something can come from nothing for nothing ever happens in a static universe: things just exist in a timeless state.