We may be able to theorize that "existence is evolutionary"; we may be able to ascertain a tendency toward organization. I have problems thinking of that as explaining why there is something rather than nothing, however. — Ciceronianus
But as something does actually exist rather than nothing this to me proves that nothing is actually impossible to exist. — Deus
Does the universe exist in order to evolve, or does the evolution take place because it exists? — Ciceronianus
The super-explanation I was thinking of, which I think is the goal of the question necessitated by the form of the question (why something instead of nothing) would be an explanation along the lines of "there's something because the universe was created for a reason." — Ciceronianus
↪Agent Smith
It strikes me that the question, as stated, should never arise. Why assume that "something" requires an explanation because it exists rather than or instead of nothing?
— Ciceronianus — 180 Proof
Why? :roll:PSR (the principle sufficient reason): If x then there's got to be a reason1/cause2/explanation3 for x. — Agent Smith
Why? :roll: — 180 Proof
And the sufficient reason for the PSR? — 180 Proof
So 'the cause of causality' doesn't precipitate an infinite regress, Smith, or beg the question?As Hume points out: "causal relations" (i.e. sufficient reasons) are only inferred "habits of association" (inductions) and not observed. — 180 Proof
As Hume points out: "causal relations" (i.e. sufficient reasons) are only inferred "habits of association" (inductions) and not observed. — 180 Proof
So 'the cause of causality' doesn't precipitate an infinite regress, Smith, or beg the question?
Is it your position that randomness is explained as the effect of a cause?
Or that reality is explained, even if only in principle, by some 'reason beyond reality?' — 180 Proof
Consider my questions koans to ponder. :sparkle: — 180 Proof
Why do you keep framing this as a problem of "something rather than nothing" when that has already been agreed as a self-contradicting metaphysics? — apokrisis
So drop the "something rather than nothing". It's the first thing to get chucked out here. — apokrisis
The question becomes why something and not everything? Why a state of structured order and not some wild material chaos? — apokrisis
Instead the universe emerged as a persisting stable structure because it discovered reason. It was organised by the inevitability of a rational or logical structure. The cosmos is itself the expression of evolutionary reasonableness. — apokrisis
In what sense is the question "Why is there a state of structured order instead of some wild material chaos?" significantly less problematic than the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" — Ciceronianus
The lengthy and frankly overwhelming article is about biology and probability as far as I can tell without reading it carefully - If you can find "chaos" in there please point it out. The author alludes to chaotic behavior when he speaks of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in the terminology of the science, but I don't find anywhere, glancing over the paper, a reference to mathematical chaotic behavior.Because maths tells us that chaos must have structure . . . — apokrisis
Because maths tells us that chaos must have structure as free possibility becomes its own system of constraints. — apokrisis
Re: 'The map is the territory fallacy' (of idealism). — 180 Proof
Because maths tells us that chaos must have structure as free possibility becomes its own system of constraints. — apokrisis
I don't know if this is an assertion based on Peirce's views or on something else. If I recall correctly, though, he thought that chaos would result in structure through the development of what he called "habits" which it seems consist of actions or patterns which have already taken place. — Ciceronianus
True. I should have written 'the map = territory fallacy" by which I mean idealists tendency for confusing – conflating – epistemology (i.e. what I/we know) & ontology (i.e. what there is), that is, there is not anything more than what I/we can 'experience'.The map / territory distinction is not a fallacy — Tobias
Always the Hegelian. That's the fallacy / incoherence of idealism I mean.it is just that there are maps all the way down. There is no territory.
What is the general definition of chaos? — apokrisis
Mathematical models then track the growth of wildness as constraints are systematically removed — apokrisis
wikiChaos theory is an interdisciplinary scientific theory and branch of mathematics focused on underlying patterns and deterministic laws, of dynamical systems, that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, that were once thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities.
wikiIn mathematics, a dynamical system is a system in which a function describes the time dependence of a point in an ambient space.
Your presentation focuses on real world chaotic behaviors that can be approached probabilistically or statistically... — jgill
...not with a more precise iterative tool. — jgill
The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity — Wikipedia
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.