What Aristotle proposed as the fundamental question of metaphysics, is the question of why a thing is the thing which it is, rather than something else. He dismissed the question of why there is something rather than nothing as somewhat incoherent, unintelligible, and replaced it with the question of why there is what there is instead of something else, as the fundamental question of being. This puts causation into its proper context by recognizing that the idea of something coming from nothing is fundamentally flawed. — Metaphysician Undercover

As @apokrisis once said, nothing is not nothing, but actually everything. Something can come from everything which to those who don't know of this equivalence is nothing. Creatio ex omnia (syn. nihilio).

To say that nothing is everything, is to state a self-contradicting misconception.

Everything is not itself a thing, which means it is no-thing. So everything is nothing. But no-thing is not nothing. So everything is not nothing.

Also no thing is everything...there is othing that is everything, so...nothing is everything...QED

Wordplay!

As apokrisis once said, nothing is not nothing, but actually everything. Something can come from everything which to those who don't know of this equivalence is nothing. Creatio ex omnia (syn. nihilio). — Agent Smith

It's another way of saying

In sum: order (i.e. dissipative structure)
is a phase-state of disorder – disorder's way of generating more disorder. — 180 Proof

:up:

Everything is not itself a thing, which means it is no-thing. So everything is nothing. But no-thing is not nothing. So everything is not nothing.

Also no thing is everything...there is othing that is everything, so...nothing is everything...QED

Wordplay! — Janus

Yes it is wordplay, but it's based in denial that there is such a thing as "the universe". Under conventional definition, the universe is a collection of all things. Hence if the universe is a thing, then everything is a thing, the universe. So only by denying that the universe is a coherent whole, as a thing, can the wordplay even begin.

To be an actual (as opposed to conceptual) thing is to be an object of the senses which means to exist in relation to other things at some place and for some time. Where and when and in relation to what does the universe exist?

The universe is an object of the senses. I see it anytime my eyes are open. That I don't see all of it doesn't mean that I don't see it.

The universe is an object of the senses. I see it anytime my eyes are open. That I don't see all of it doesn't mean that I don't see it. — Metaphysician Undercover

You don't really mean to say this. The universe is not an object of the senses. You don't actually see the totality of everything. The universe is not a place.

:up:

That is a weak rejoinder. With any object of the senses the boundaries are determinable, and an object of the senses has a location. Where is the universe located?

To say that nothing is everything, is to state a self-contradicting misconception — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: It seems that you're not wrong but without being right.

You don't really mean to say this. The universe is not an object of the senses. You don't actually see the totality of everything. The universe is not a place. — L'éléphant

I don't see your point. To see something does not require seeing the totality of it. I look at my car, and I see it. Having a motor, transmission and drive shaft are essential parts of the car, but I do not see them. Likewise, "the totality of everything" is essential to the universe, but I can still see the universe without seeing the totality of everything. We could say "a multitude of H2O molecules" is essential to being a body of water. But I see a body of water without seeing any molecules of H2O. Your argument clearly fails.

That is a weak rejoinder. With any object of the senses the boundaries are determinable, and an object of the senses has a location. Where is the universe located? — Janus

It's your argument which is weak Janus. The true boundaries of a sense object are always indeterminable. What is the boundary of a smell? A smell consists of molecules which are sensed. How many molecules of the specific gas are required before it is smelled? Of course that depends on many factors. There is no determinable boundary to a smell. Nor is there a determinable boundary between blue and green, nor red and orange. The true boundaries of colours are indeterminable.

Your claim that any object of the senses has a determinable boundary is simply unjustifiable. How is it that I feel the heat of the sun on my skin? Am I touching the sun? If so, where is its boundary? If not, then where is the boundary which marks the edge of the sun? And how is it that the moon affects the tides in the oceans on earth? If we place a boundary at the edge of the visible part of the moon, between the moon and the earth, then is the moon's gravity not a part of the moon? If the moon's gravity is not a part of the moon, then what is it? And if it is a part of the moon how can it have an effect on earth if the boundary of the moon is between the earth and moon? That a sense object has determinable boundaries is just an assumption of convenience, which is not at all a truth.

These boundaries we refer to are not "determinable", but arbitrarily stipulated. Therefore the object's "location" is also arbitrarily stipulated according to the stipulated boundary. Then we position the object in relation to a number of other things to assign a location. Where is the sun? The centre of the solar system (consisting of a number of things). Where is the solar system? In the Milky Way (consisting of a multitude of things). Where is the Milky Way? Etc.. So when it comes to the question "where is the universe located?", we can make an equally arbitrary answer which positions it relative to a number of things. We can locate it as "everywhere". This is simply to say that its location is relative to the location of everything (consisting of a multitude of things). So we locate the universe relative to a number of things, just like we locate the sun relative to a number of things, and there is no fundamental difference.

You see, your argument has no strength. It is extremely weak due to unsound premises.

Objects of the senses have visually or tactitlely determinable boundaries. Visual objects have edges and tactile objects have surfaces. Sounds and smells are not objects, but stimuli.

We can look at distant galaxies and stars and see the whole of them, although of course only from our perspective here on Earth. Those objects have assignable locations relative to Earth and to each other. The same cannot be said for the Universe. You are clutching at straws.

Objects of the senses have visually or tactitlely determinable boundaries. Visual objects have edges and tactile objects have surfaces. Sounds and smells are not objects, but stimuli. — Janus

As I explained, those are not true boundaries, they are just what appears to be a boundary through that particular sense. And, since sounds and smells are sensed, but you say they are not objects, your whole general category, "objects of the senses"' breaks down. What is sensed is stimuli, as you now admit, not objects.

Then with our minds we decide which parts of our environment which we are sensing qualify as "objects". You, for no good reason want to disqualify "the universe" from being an object. Why? Do you have any reason for this desire, even if it's a bad reason?

You are just digging yourself a deeper hole with each post Janus.

We can look at distant galaxies and stars and see the whole of them — Janus

That's nonsense. I look at a distant hill and I can't even see the whole of it. I don't see each rock, each tree, each molecule, or each atom, and I don't see the whole back side of it. Your premises are terribly wrong. If you want to make a respectable argument, I suggest that you put a little more thought into your premises. And if you did that, you would see that you haven't an argument to make, because there are no true premises which would support what you are arguing.

As I explained, those are not true boundaries, they are just what appears to be a boundary through that particular sense. And, since sounds and smells are sensed, but you say they are not objects, your whole general category, "objects of the senses"' breaks down. What is sensed is stimuli, as you now admit, not objects. — Metaphysician Undercover

What is a "true boundary"? Just as there are no perfect circles. rectangles, triangles or perfectly straight lines in nature, there are no perfect boundaries. However that doesn't matter. because we perceive edges and surfaces, and our notion of a boundary is based on those perceptions. The notion of a perfect boundary is abstracted from those perceptions, just as the notions of perfect geometrical shapes are abstracted from perceptions of allotments, paths, buildings and wheels and so on.

Sounds and smells. like the visual images and tactile sensations of objects are stimuli. but the former are conceived, and hence perceived, as being effects of the actions or processes associated with the objects we can feel and see. The idea of objects of the senses does not require that all sensory stimuli be conceived and perceived as objects; to claim that would be a lame argument indeed.

's nonsense. I look at a distant hill and I can't even see the whole of it. I don't see each rock, each tree, each molecule, or each atom, and I don't see the whole back side of it. — Metaphysician Undercover

You don't need to see every detail in order to a whole object from some perspective. You can move around many objects so as to see them from all sides, and in principle you could do this with a star or even a galaxy. If you got close enough to see the individual stars of a galaxy you would no longer be able to see the whole galaxy. that is you would not be able to see the shape of the galaxy from a particular perspective if too close.

Your objections are remarkably pointless I have to say! I think you need to try harder and stop shifting the goalposts or distorting what is being said to you..

I don't see your point. To see something does not require seeing the totality of it. I look at my car, and I see it. Having a motor, transmission and drive shaft are essential parts of the car, but I do not see them. Likewise, "the totality of everything" is essential to the universe, but I can still see the universe without seeing the totality of everything. We could say "a multitude of H2O molecules" is essential to being a body of water. But I see a body of water without seeing any molecules of H2O. Your argument clearly fails. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're forgetting one thing -- you can't step outside the universe to observe it. You are always inside the solar system, inside the galaxy, among the billions of solar systems and galaxies in a collection called the universe. You would need to get outside our solar system, then outside our galaxy, then outside the billions other galaxies, then outside the universe to do what you say you could do similar with your car.

woud this mean one can't study the atmosphere (unlike a car), unless one can go outside the atmosphere. And aren't we really studying lots of incomplete sense impressions or anything we study and creating some kind of model of the whole, regardless. I mean, we don't study eachother's innerds (mental or physical). We infer things and build up models, much of it based on indirect contact with effects. Why is inside inherently worse than outside? Toplogically----

From George Gamow's 1, 2, 3 Infinity...

Sounds and smells. like the visual images and tactile sensations of objects are stimuli. but the former are conceived, and hence perceived, as being effects of the actions or processes associated with the objects we can feel and see. The idea of objects of the senses does not require that all sensory stimuli be conceived and perceived as objects; to claim that would be a lame argument indeed. — Janus

I can't agree with what you are saying. You are classing hearing and smelling as distinct from seeing and touching. But it seems to me that hearing and seeing are much more similar to each other as the reception of waves. So why would you separate them in categorizing types of sensations?

I think the traditional categorization is to place touch, taste, and smell together as tactile senses. The tactile senses are understood to operate through an action of molecules. Then hearing and sight are somewhat different because they operate through the reception of waves.

I think that if you want to talk about objects of sense, we'd be talking about molecules, because these seem to be the only objects which are actually sensed, and they are sensed by the tactile senses. That there are any objects other than these must be a conception of the mind.

You don't need to see every detail in order to a whole object from some perspective. — Janus

I can't agree with your definition of "whole" either. You imply that sensing some random parts constitutes sensing the "whole". So whatever parts constitutes "the whole" is just an arbitrary judgement you make for the purpose of supporting your argument. In reality, the whole is the complete, all there is, the entirety of something.

You can move around many objects so as to see them from all sides, and in principle you could do this with a star or even a galaxy. — Janus

And this is, is just a demonstration of sloppy thinking on your part. To imply that something which could be done "in principle" is what is actually done in practise is just a false premise.

You are completely ignoring what I said a number of posts ago. We cannot, even in principle, sense the boundaries of the things which we call objects. That is what I demonstrated with my examples of the sun and moon. We do not sense the gravity which is a part of the moon. Yet this part of the moon is right here on the earth, as we know by the tidal effects. Therefore the boundary of the moon must be beyond the earth, and not at all sensed by us. We do sense the light of the sun so this part of the sun is right here touching us. But we do not see how far that part of the sun extends, we don't see its boundary.

You're forgetting one thing -- you can't step outside the universe to observe it. — L'éléphant

I don't see how that's relevant. You cannot observe anything from outside of it. To observe it requires that it has an effect on you, and this means that part of it is touching you. If part of it is touching you, you are not outside it. That was the point of my example of the sun. I feel the warmth of the sun on my skin, therefore part of the sun is touching me. We know this as the sun's electromagnetic field. So, just like I am not outside of the moon because I am within this part of it which we call its gravity, I am also not outside of the sun because I am inside this part of it which we call its electromagnetic field.

We infer things and build up models, much of it based on indirect contact with effects. Why is inside inherently worse than outside? Toplogically---- — Bylaw

Here in lies the problem with Metaphysician Undercover's understanding of what is the "object of perception".

Inferring is not the same knowing as seeing the "object of perception", as MU said earlier in his post. Knowing through the object of perception means you actually use your 5 senses to get to know an object. You see a walking, talking person, you are perceiving that person as other person.

Yes, we know something about the universe. i.e. the totality of everything, but this did not come about because we saw the "whole universe" in front of us, but we inferred thousands of things about it, using our own sun, moon, stars.

Edit:

woud this mean one can't study the atmosphere (unlike a car), unless one can go outside the atmosphere. — Bylaw

En fait, we can. No one here is saying this. If you're introducing a new twist in this discussion, write that bit in a way that you don't attribute it to me.

Inferring is not the same knowing as seeing the "object of perception", — L'éléphant

Yes, I got that. My point was that there is inferring in pretty much everything we look at, even small stuff. But also the atmosphere, rivers, and other bigger stuff. When we sense another person, we get a series of snapshots. As I mentioned we don't see their insides, body or mind. A mass of approximations are made and a kind of model - and that's not even bringing in all the filters and interpretations in everyday sensory experience.

Knowing through the object of perception means you actually use your 5 senses to get to know an object — L'éléphant

That's only part of what we do with even mundane objects.

Yes, we know something about the universe. i.e. the totality of everything, but this did not come about because we saw the "whole universe" in front of us, — L'éléphant

We never see the whole anything. Even if our perception was somehow direct, without models, filters and interpretation, we only get series of perceiving facets of the object. And then, of course, it's only surfaces we perceive and from these snapshot facets we build up an internal model or set of sensory symbols.[quote="L'éléphant;778892"

]woud this mean one can't study the atmosphere (unlike a car), unless one can go outside the atmosphere. — Bylaw

En fait, we can. No one here is saying this. If you're introducing a new twist in this discussion, write that bit in a way that you don't attribute it to me.

I wasn't attributing it to you. I was pointing out that your objection to universe would hold for atmosphere. I also am extending this to smaller, everyday objects in this post and the other. I specifically chose atmosphere because you said that being inside something was a problem. We are inside the atmosphere.

I also don't see how inside vs. outside is relevant. Hence the Gamow image and idea.

We don't/can't perceive whole objects. Not even a spoon in our kitchen. We'll see one angle but not others. We don't see the inside. We see it in this particular light. And we build up a kind of cliche image in our heads and we generally see that and perhaps notice significant deviations from that when seeing a new style spoon. Once you are dealing with something more complicated than a spoon - like a squirrel or a human - the interpretations, series of snapshots, all that is missing from any direct view (or hearing, smelling, tasting, touching) is only more significant.

IOW I see your objections to sensing the universe as present in all our sensing. We never look at whole things. We are always inferring and interpreting and working with mental models, ready in advance. Just as we fill in our blind spots but globally instead of locally.

I give a kind of retake of this post in response to Janus 4 posts down from here.

So much changing of the subject and so much confusion on your part it's too much trouble to address, so I'll let it go. Good luck finding any clarity on your unnecessarily tortuous path.

Inferring is not the same knowing as seeing the "object of perception", as MU said earlier in his post. Knowing through the object of perception means you actually use your 5 senses to get to know an object. You see a walking, talking person, you are perceiving that person as other person. — L'éléphant

To use all five senses to know an object requires that your mind unifies the information from each of the five. This would be a form of synthesis. The senses don't know anything, the mind does.

We don't/can't perceive whole objects. — Bylaw

In one sense this is true and in another not. Most familiar objects we can move around to see the object from all sides. From any perspective view we can see the edges of objects; where they visually begin and end, so to speak.

Of course unless we dissect something we see only the surface. We don't see the microphysical constitution of objects, but we can tell what material they are made of by sight and by feel and sometimes by sound, smell or taste.

In one sense this is true and in another not. Most familiar objects we can move around to see the object from all sides. — Janus

Yes, we can. So, we get a series of snapshots of the outside

Of course unless we dissect something we see only the surface. We don't see the microphysical constitution of objects, but we can tell what material they are made of by sight and by feel and sometimes by sound, smell or taste. — Janus

Yes. My main idea is that we are always using a multitude of observations to construct a kind of whole image. After we have seen the thing once, we, I think, refer to the constructed whole image. I am not sure that is so different from what we do coming up with the idea of the universe.

If we take an ice cube as our example. It is more or less one substance, barring pockets of air and whatever impurities there are in the h20. We see the surfaces, and we luckily in this case get to see the inside. We make enough observations to get a sense of the whole and this seems miles away from what we do with a universe.

But as a next example we take a human or even a humble bee. Suddenly we have something made up of thousands of substances, most on the inside. I think the bee likely has some consciousness - in the sense that it experiences. This is also 'inside'. They are actually fairly complex cognitively - they can understand the concept of Zero for example.

Here we are building up a very incomplete model in our minds for the object we see. Some melittologist
may well have a much more complete model in his or her mind, but this has been built up via observations and mulling and reading over a long period of time. Must of the bee is opaque to the direct senses and to be sensed requires taking the bee apart, autopsy version or chemical. And probably also all sorts of indirect observations. Taking tests what show what is there or going on inside. or like the tests that showed the bees could understand or work with the idea of zero. There was no direct perception of this.

And even the humble ice cube is known by many to be made up of atoms and perhaps the patterns of those atoms in ice. Then the make up of the atoms, then that in a way the little solar system model of the atom is, at least in qm, a reification of, well strange stuff and patterns and more like energy, though not energy, etc.........Most people manage without this, but then their models are more incomplete, even if the best experts' models are also incomplete. And then there are individual differences between ice cubes, some visible, some not.

And as I said earlier this isn't really going into the nitty gritty of our perception. Which is not like a direct seeing, but rather interpretations and translations and filtering to make a kind of internal images of each snapshot taken of the ice cube. So, we are building even in what seems like a mere direct looking at the object. And past viewings and expectations are added in also.

So, when we talk about the universe, yes, it's not direct. It's a built up model each of us have, some more informed than others with idiosyncratic foci. Well, the universe is the most complicated thing we know of. Of course any building up of a model for this is going to be very complicated. And sure, we may get this model via more inferral or more steps, since we use the observations of others, generally, to build up this model. It's at the far end of a spectrum, but I am not sure that it is qualitatively different.

I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate here, but I am not sure it's so different when someone says TV or Russia or atmosphere or school or squirrel to me or my father's desk or......

I think they have focused their senses on a fraction of these things, in some cases (the squirrel, Russia, even the TV and my father's desk for most people, certainly the atmosphere, just a tiny fraction, and have some model in their heads.

I don't see universe as the exception. Not because it is outside us (as is the atmosphere). And not because we have direct perception of other things, but not it.

I pretty much agree with everything you say there, but I do think the Universe is a special case. We can draw, photograph whole objects of the senses from different perspectives, including galaxies (at least in principle) and we can make actual or virtual computer 3D models of objects of the senses, including galaxies, but this is not the case with the Universe. It is a counterintuitive "object"; it either has no boundary (is infinite) at all or it is bounded in a way we cannot visualize.

I'd want to go in again to the example 'the atmosphere', not to change your mind about your points about universe - which I think are good ones - but to try to present 'things' as more of a spectrum than objects vs the exception universe. But I've already made my points and babbled a lot. I was being somewhat polemical. It was that spectrum conclusion I've been heading for rather than a 'hey, the universe is just like a spoon as an object of perception'.opposed position.

I had no idea that this was such a big confusion among some of you. I thought it was intuitive what an "object of perception" is. I took it for granted that this comes easy.

If I may try another attempt to dissuade you, let us use the example of a mound of millet. Assume you are a grain piled up with other thousand grains. You wouldn't be able to see the mound, but of course you can infer that a mound has been formed out of the thousands of you and other grains. You could, for example, use fractals to calculate that, one, a mound has formed, how big, and how high the mound is. Using logarithmic curve, maybe some volume, you could extrapolate that there is, indeed, a mound that exists out of the millions of grains.

But you never, ever, have come to the point that you are outside the mound perceiving it. Never.

It is not the sleep of reason but the awakening of the imagination that begets monsters. — Numerius Negedius

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate. — Novacula Occami

I had no idea that this was such a big confusion among some of you. I thought it was intuitive what an "object of perception" is. I took it for granted that this comes easy. — L'éléphant

You ought to read Kant and Berkeley. That there are objects of perception is intuitive, what an object of perception is, is not.

But you never, ever, have come to the point that you are outside the mound perceiving it. Never. — L'éléphant

Why do you think that perceiving is done from the outside? Isn't it the case that the person perceiving is in the centre of the field of perception, perceiving one's surroundings, one's environment? So if perceiving is to be described in terms of inside/outside, the perceiver is inside, and what is perceived is outside the perceiver.