How can a state of nothingness pass down any kind of a complex property like a negative charge of a sub-particle, if nothingness itself is void of any kind of properties. A state of nothingness has no properties. For example, there appears to be no rational reason to say nothingness can randomly produce that negative charge of a sub-particle, because then we will ask, what laws determined that negative charge and why wasn’t it another quantity? — telex
How can a state of somethingness have always existed? Somethingness implies some kind of a determined complexity. — telex
I am using a sub-particle in this kind of an example, but as I mentioned, something else could be used as a better substitute. — telex
Yes in science, that seems to be the case that there is a need for teleology. But here we are putting teleology aside, for philosophical inquiries. — telex
For example, a sub-particle with a certain positive charge will be a cause for concern as to how it has always existed with that numerical positive charge. Why hasn’t it always existed with another numerical positive charge. What laws determined that positive charge? — telex
But what? If there has never been a thing created out of nothing, what possible substitute could there be? — Kenosha Kid
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
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. — telex
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
Ok I think I see what you're saying.
Based on the argument I presented, that would depend on our definition of nothing. — telex
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
quantum laws forbid any coherent spacetime from being actually empty of stuff. — apokrisis
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. — telex
(i guess i do use some empirical examples, like a sub-particle, etc .. ) — telex
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
Rather than something from nothing, or something from something, the third option is something from everything — apokrisis
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. — telex
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] — telex
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. — telex
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
But I've pointed out that your a priori reasoning is a straight reflection of 1600s empiricism. — apokrisis
The article also concedes....
— telex
The situation might be changing, albeit gradually. The current generation of philosophers of physics takes quantum mechanics very seriously, and they have done crucially important work in bringing conceptual clarity to the field. Empirically minded physicists have realized that the phenomenon of measurement can be directly probed by sufficiently subtle experiments. And the advance of technology has brought questions about quantum computers and quantum information to the forefront of the field. Together, these trends might make it once again respectable to think about the foundations of quantum theory, as it briefly was in Einstein and Bohr’s day.
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. — telex
Let’s start with the simplest thing we possibly can. Absolute Nothingness. What can you see when you think of nothingness? Nothing. Black. An infinite non-ending void. If there was an end to this black void, would that imply some kind of a boundary? And isn’t a ‘boundary’ something? — telex
Perhaps, we can say that Nothingness has at least one property of being infinite. — telex
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
Sure, you can say it goes in one line. But that's again your interpretation of this. — telex
Quantum physics is an empiricist point of view. This is a a priori argument. — telex
There can be similarities, however, this argument is for a priori. Your arugment is for empiricism. — telex
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.