Logically, nothing should exist.

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
User avatar
Neopolitan
Posts: 1812
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 7:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The one who asks
Contact:

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Neopolitan »

Spiral Out wrote:Did the universe exist TO YOU before you were consciously aware of it? <snip> If your answer to my question is "yes it did" then I'll ask how you were able to understand the existence of the universe when you possessed nothing to understand it with (a brain).
Yes, it did. I am currently sitting in my study. In another part of my house there is a bed room with a bed in it and a few chests of drawers and whatnot, covered in a thin layer of dust and discarded clothing. Even though my mind is stuck inside my head and cannot travel to my bedroom to check on its on-going existence, I consider that it exists, objectively. Absent the actions of the cat and perhaps those who share my domicile, I expect that when I return to my bedroom it will be the same bedroom, in the same configuration as I left several hours ago (although I am aware that the air in it may well have changed, there will be some additional dust, some minuscule entropic effects would have taken place, the mould in the en suite is likely to have spread imperceptibly and I expect that some bacteria colonies will have grown somewhat - but none of that will be noticeable to me). Similarly, I visited Paris some years ago, and I noticed that it has some really old stuff in it, stuff that (appears to have) existed long before I did. Hell, even some trees near where I live seem to be older than me. The rocks are ancient including, critically, those on which my house is resting. But I am aware that, a long long time ago, the material that comprise those rocks was red hot magma - it's had a long time to cool down. To me, that is important, so the universe did exist before I did <<TO ME>>.

Moving away from mere material and inanimate things, my parents also existed prior to me. I've been privileged to observe the creation of a new human (not from the very start, that'd be a bit creepy, but from the swelling of a belly and then the production of a nicely wrapped screaming thing), so I am aware that when I became aware of the universe (such that I now remember) was quite some time after I emerged from my mothers loins. I myself existed before I was aware of my existence (ie as part of the continuous awareness of existence that I have now).

Your argument, Spectrum, seems a little ridiculous when you look closely at it, because you are pretty much saying that you were never a suckling infant (perhaps from a bottle, but suckling nevertheless) because you have no recollection of it. Your parents never existed prior to your existence, according to your logic.

Similarly, there are things that happened to you as a child, and perhaps even as a young adult (and quite likely even recently) of which you have no reliable memory at all. Are you saying that these things didn't happen because they are not in your awareness? Look at your body, quite likely you have a few scars, perhaps even some extant scratches or bruises (more likely scratches if you also have a cat). Do you remember clearly getting all of those injuries? If you are like most people, and honest with yourself, you will have some marks on you that you have no recollection of. Did the incident(s) that led to those marks not happen because you cannot remember them and thus they are not part of your on-going existential awareness? Some magic fairy just came and painted them on?

I know that you don't believe in magic fairies, but this is a logical continuation of your argument. Nothing that you cannot remember exists, therefore anything you forget just disappears into non-existence. (And what about things in the world that you have never experienced - for example, I've seen photos of the pyramids and video footage, but I've not visited them myself, do they exist despite not being in my experience? I say they do, your argument suggests that they don't. And that's piffle!)

Why you think that this isn't solipsism is beyond me. Perhaps, deep down, you are aware that solipsism is a ridiculous world view and you reject the label on that basis, but you haven't managed to rid yourself of the world view that the label refers to.

(By the way, given that I accept the existence of the universe in the past, I have no problems with accepting the universe in the future, even though it will be a future in which I play no active role. Perhaps this is your solution to the non-existential angst that comes from knowing that the universe will go on once you are gone, and thus you will be missing out on all the excitement. I take a different position: once I am dead, I won't be around and I won't be in any condition to care about missing out on anything. Right at this moment, I am notionally sad to be missing out on flying cars and interstellar travel, but this is a consequence of being alive - I am also sad to not be living on a little shack on a tropic island (tropical islands that I am pretty certain exist) and that visiting the pyramids (which I am pretty certain exist) might not be possible when I have the time and means to take a trip there - such is life.)
  • neopolitan || neophilosophical.blogspot.com

    • The one who called himself God is, and always has been - Ariel Parik

      I am just going outside and may be some time - Oates (Antarctica, 1912)

      It was fun while it lasted ...
User avatar
Misty
Premium Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Misty »

Spiral Out wrote:
The nature of my comment is that the concept of existence, and consequently & conversely, the concept of absolute non-existence (the Void), are concepts that can only be known to consciously aware sentient beings.
Strange sentence coming from one who always says there are no absolutes :!:

SEQUENCE has no void :!: :!:
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
Ruskin
Posts: 1573
Joined: March 30th, 2014, 2:18 pm

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Ruskin »

Neopolitan wrote:
I know that you don't believe in magic fairies, but this is a logical continuation of your argument. Nothing that you cannot remember exists, therefore anything you forget just disappears into non-existence.
Or it's still there but we don't have access to it at this specific moment in time. If you were to undergo say hypnosis for example you may be able to recall memories you would otherwise have forgotten. The brain tends to filter out memories that aren't immediately useful or it may repress memories that are traumatic and painful. Full scientific fact being stated here btw nothing religious, though near death people apparently attain full memory recall.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Obvious Leo »

Ruskin wrote:near death people apparently attain full memory recall.
What does this statement mean, please? Specifically what does "near death" mean and what does "full memory recall" mean? Memory of what?

Regards Leo

-- Updated January 3rd, 2015, 11:07 am to add the following --
Misty wrote: SEQUENCE has no void :!: :!:
Could you elaborate on this enigmatic statement please, Misty. It's certainly arresting in its brevity, a feature which appeals to a student of the obvious, but I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Regards Leo

-- Updated January 3rd, 2015, 11:32 am to add the following --
Neopolitan wrote: Why you think that this isn't solipsism is beyond me.
Neo. I've got a little problem which I'm hoping you can help me with since you appear to suffer from the same affliction. I'm sure you'll agree that arguing with a solipsist is every bit as ridiculous as arguing with a theist and yet you and I don't seem to be able to restrain ourselves. We dishonour philosophy when we do this and I'm rather anxious to set matters to rights. I've racked my brain looking for an explanation for my absurd conduct but not with much success. Perhaps you've addressed your attention to this self-same question with better result so I seek counsel.

A sample of some of the explanations I have been reviewing.

1. I am suffering from a personality defect

2. I am suffering from an omnipotence complex and believe I can do the impossible

3. I am suffering from a Messiah complex and feel compelled to engineer the salvation of the metaphysically stricken.

4. I'm just a bloody masochist.

Which of these strikes you as the most probable cause for my ailment and what treatment would you recommend short of cold turkey. Perhaps you have an alternative explanation which I haven't yet considered.

Yours in desperation Leo
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Vijaydevani »

Spiral Out wrote: Existence is a subjective interpretation of being based on our conscious perception and experience as derived through our senses.
Existence is existence. Our subjective interpretation of it is just our subjective interpretation of it. We subjectively interpret everything. But your subjective interpretation has nothing to do with the reality of existence. Existence is independent of our subjective interpretation. However, our personal form of existence, which is that of a living organism, is subject to change.
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
User avatar
Misty
Premium Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Misty »

Obvious Leo wrote:
Misty wrote: SEQUENCE has no void :!: :!:
Could you elaborate on this enigmatic statement please, Misty. It's certainly arresting in its brevity, a feature which appeals to a student of the obvious, but I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Regards Leo
Humans observe life energy as sequential so there is no "void" (gaps of nothing) to observe. Life energy flows before, during and after the animated man dies, so again there is no void. Humans observe the animation of life but we cannot observe life per se.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
Ruskin
Posts: 1573
Joined: March 30th, 2014, 2:18 pm

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Ruskin »

Obvious Leo wrote:
What does this statement mean, please? Specifically what does "near death" mean and what does "full memory recall" mean? Memory of what?
The experience people have during the initial (and reversible) stages of death there does seem to be a memory recall event of everything that ever happened to them in their life.

" A sense/awareness of being dead. A sense of peace, well-being and painlessness. Positive emotions. A sense of removal from the world. An out-of-body experience. A perception of one's body from an outside position. Sometimes observing doctors and nurses performing medical resuscitation efforts. A "tunnel experience" or entering a darkness. A sense of moving up, or through, a passageway or staircase. A rapid movement toward and/or sudden immersion in a powerful light (or "Being of Light") which communicates with the person. An intense feeling of unconditional love and acceptance. Encountering "Beings of Light", "Beings dressed in white", or similar. Also, the possibility of being reunited with deceased loved ones. Receiving a life review, commonly referred to as "seeing one's life flash before one's eyes".
Receiving knowledge about one's life and the nature of the universe. Approaching a border, or a decision by oneself or others to return to one's body, often accompanied by a reluctance to return. Suddenly finding oneself back inside one's body."


At this stage the brain will have entirely deactivated and is no longer functional as a filter for memory/conciousness though there are still people who take issue to the fact that people are still conciousness after death and say it's all a hallucination. There's really too much too going on there for it to be a hallucination, you may as well say everything we ever experience in life is a hallucination while you're at it.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Obvious Leo »

Misty. Now I get it and I thank you for your clarification. I have no taste for sophistry and I'm easily bored so I'm sick of Spiral's void.

When you speak of sequence you touch a subject dear to my heart, namely that of time, change and causation. We tend to use these terms selectively when examining physical systems and that's because we can only examine subsets of the universe and observe them from the outside looking in. That this creates paradoxes in physics is unsurprising because on the cosmic scale these terms are completely synonymous and the observer can only observe his world from the inside looking out. The universe has no outside.
Misty wrote:. Humans observe the animation of life but we cannot observe life per se.
This is effectively saying the same thing as I'm saying above. We can't observe life in the sense you intend because we're living it. Life is only definable in terms of its changes so any observation we make of it is obsolete by the time we've observed it. You're exactly right. The Moving Finger of time never stops and it allows for no hiatus of nothingness between one event and the next. Life is a continuous PROCESS.

In my philosophy I extend this paradigm to the entire universe itself because to a student of the obvious it is inconceivable that a process could exist within any entity which is not itself a process. One doesn't need to be all that adept in philosophy to see that such a proposition is absurd and yet this is exactly what the science of physics is claiming. They can't seem to see that our physical world is EITHER (A) a collection of objects moving in space OR (B) a sequence of events occurring in time. Newton opted confidently for option A but Einstein could see that this didn't quite work because of the observed constant speed of light, an observation that Newton was unaware of. Albert decided to have his cake and eat it too and thus sat the entire world of science on its head by declaring that A and B were both true. The fact that this described a universe which made no sense was regarded as a trivial inconvenience. The equations worked out perfectly as long as you were willing to chuck in a few mathematical constants as required. These constants are derived from observation, known for millennia as a most unreliable source for truth, and for the past century all the geeks have just been quietly pretending they didn't cheat.

Resolving this metaphysical inconsistency is so childishly obvious that I'm stunned it took me over thirty years to resolve it. I comfort myself with the thought that the physicists have been staring at the elephant in the room for 300 years, blinded by their Newtonian reductionism.

Here is the resolution to the problem of physics and it unifies absolutely EVERYTHING. Our physical world is a sequence of events occurring in time which the observer observes as objects moving in space. Both the objects and the space are artefacts of his consciousness, in accordance with every major philosopher in history.

I declare the problem of physics solved and promise I'll shut up about it after I get my Nobel.

Regards Leo

-- Updated January 3rd, 2015, 6:13 pm to add the following --

Ruskin. In the interests of diplomacy I won't say too much about your post. However I simply must point out that those who reported their sense/awareness of being dead were in fact wrong. They were alive when they sensed these things and their bizarre experience is entirely accounted for by oxygen starvation to the brain.

Research into near-death experiences has been going on for a very long time and a wealth of data is available. The vast majority of people when asked what they sensed simply said. Nothing. How come what happened to this overwhelming majority is ignored? Do I detect a selection bias? Every scientist that studies this subject certainly does.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 949
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 10:56 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Heraclitus

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by A_Seagull »

One of the important purposes of philosophy is to describe that which exists.

If logic can 'prove' that nothing exists; then logic cannot apply to the real existing world.
The Pattern Paradigm - yer can't beat it!
User avatar
Misty
Premium Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Misty »

A_Seagull wrote:One of the important purposes of philosophy is to describe that which exists.

If logic can 'prove' that nothing exists; then logic cannot apply to the real existing world.
Logic cannot logically prove that nothing exists because of logics existence.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Obvious Leo »

I'm rather reluctant to confess this, because I regard myself as an above-average logician, but I'm not convinced that logic alone can actually prove anything. Any proposition of logic must proceed from at least one premise and take the form if X then Y. No matter how exquisitely we manage to craft our arguments the validity of our conclusion is always entirely contingent on the truth value of our premise. If X is crap all our philosophical virtuosity is in vain. Obviously we can then proceed to establish the validity of X via a supplementary argument but clearly this new argument must also take the if/then form from a different premise. The infinite regress is off and running.

The point is a technical one and of no particular significance in our everyday use of logic but it does have consequences for the philosopher with a yearning for Absolute Truth. We all know that there is actually such a thing but we are forced to concede that this ideal must always lie beyond the reach of human reason, a point which Kant explores in considerable depth in the "Critique". In principle nothing is provable and everything is disprovable. Logic is a surer path to truth than mathematics, even though mathematics is infinitely precise in its conclusions and logic is not, for semantic reasons. Mathematical objects are pure abstractions derived from patterns of organisation in our observations. They can do no more than map these patterns, which means they're mapping a subjective construct of the observer and not the objective ontology that underpins it. Mathematics are therefore an epistemic tool only and any attempt to use mathematics as an explanatory paradigm is doomed to fail.

As a gesture of compassion somebody really ought to tell the physicists and put them out of their misery.

Regards Leo
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13784
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Belinda »

Obvious Leo wrote:
No matter how exquisitely we manage to craft our arguments the validity of our conclusion is always entirely contingent on the truth value of our premise.
Yes, but what if all the given premises support one another to the effect of a well rounded-out theory as Spinoza's grand theory?
Socialist
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Obvious Leo »

Belinda wrote:Yes, but what if all the given premises support one another to the effect of a well rounded-out theory as Spinoza's grand theory?
Naturally this is the great theory of physics that everybody's been looking for since Einstein. The so-called Theory Of Everything. It's well obvious to everybody in physics by now that their model-building paradigm has run its course because 100 years after GR they've actually retreated further from their goal than they were when they started.

Thomas Kuhn put the problem very clearly decades ago when he said that the next major breakthrough in physics would result not from a refinement of existing models but from a paradigm shift in the way science thinks the world. Newton invented physics and based his entire model on an assumption that the world was a created entity with a beginning. This idea is largely unloved in physics nowadays but developing a model on the alternative premise simply can't be done with Newton's classical mathematics, a truth which Einstein conceded not long before his death. Newtonian mathematics is inherently reductionist and cannot be used to model a process. This is well known in all the sciences, including physics, but this knowledge doesn't help them much because neither Newton's physical space nor Einstein's geometric space can accommodate a process reality.

The Persians said it all, Belinda. Spaces are not physical objects but mathematical objects. Most physicists can accept this in an abstract sense but don't seem able to arrive at the logical conclusion. If space is not physical then it can have no role to play in a physical model of reality. This means their current models are based on an assumption which gives them three dimensions surplus to requirements. No wonder their equations are so bloody complicated. My prediction is that Spinoza's world will be mathematically expressible on the back of an envelope in the language of fractal geometry, the only mathematical tool which can model a non-linear dynamic system.

Physics is the only science in the world that doesn't express it's underpinning model fractally and this is no surprise because it can't. This is what Kuhn meant by his paradigm shift. A slight tweak in the way we think the world can have major consequences for the way we model it. Newton thought the world as a PLACE and I think the world as an EVENT.

Regards Leo
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Sy Borg »

Obvious Leo wrote:Greta. I didn't intend my offering to be construed as a personal criticism of you, and I apologise without reservation if you construed it in this light. In fact I find your contributions both illuminating and relevant. However we are dealing here with an OP which offers a non-sequitur as a dialectical premise and such nonsense is inappropriate in a forum which presumes to explore authentic lines of philosophical enquiry.

My criticism is most specifically directed at Spiral Out, whose world-view is incompatible with human reason and whose arguments are nothing more than fatuous word-play with no underpinning philosophical substance.
Apology accepted, Leo. A couple of people here have PM'd me and it would be churlish to cling to my position. I was bruised after some ill-fated forays into the viper pit of religion threads and in a sense it was plea for us to take "body contact sport" aspect out of philosophical discussion. Maybe for a few of us to dial the testosterone back a tad ... ?

It did hurt that you chose my post (taken out of context and misunderstood IMO), from all the bizarre things said at times on the forum, to declare not up to the standards of philosophical discussion. I didn't complete high school and never attended university so I'm here to learn and test my untutored conceptions. When I make mistakes all I need is correction, sans attitude. I enjoy learning from more educated members when I can, even if I sometimes feel like a dog trying to comprehend humans watching TV.

On topic: At the time of writing I found the paradoxical nature of the non sequitur satisfying. My point was just that we have evidence for "something", which makes "nothing" the speculative proposition. That's my current position, as opposed to Spiral's 'Void' concept, though I find it hard to discount the possibility that there may be absolutely nothing behind(?), underpinning(?) reality as we know it.

No option - "everlasting something" or "endless nothing" - is intuitive because, whatever the truth is, we are dealing with aspects of reality that don't operate according to our known laws of physics.

PS. Scott, sorry for the housekeeping content of this post but it seemed the easiest way forward. Shall try to either stay on topic or shut my trap from here on.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
User avatar
Neopolitan
Posts: 1812
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 7:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The one who asks
Contact:

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Neopolitan »

Obvious Leo wrote:My prediction is that Spinoza's world will be mathematically expressible on the back of an envelope in the language of fractal geometry, the only mathematical tool which can model a non-linear dynamic system.

Physics is the only science in the world that doesn't express it's underpinning model fractally and this is no surprise because it can't. This is what Kuhn meant by his paradigm shift. A slight tweak in the way we think the world can have major consequences for the way we model it. Newton thought the world as a PLACE and I think the world as an EVENT.
Right, Leo, we can get back to where we were on a thread that locked, because there is a clear link between Spiral's non-existence (which he insists on mystically referring to as "the Void") and the non-existence of space that you tend to go on about. Both of you, in a sense, insist that there is nothing (either subjectively or spatially).

Firstly, fractal geometry doesn't seem to mean what you think it means. It doesn't have a "language" and I don't know where you are coming from when you insist things like "(p)hysics is the only science in the world that doesn't express it's underpinning model fractally" and you seem to not understand what an event is. We can easily talk about events in physics and, in reality, all actual locations are in fact sequences of events (which perhaps is what mean by processes). It's only when we get into mathematics that we can talk accurately about locations (because we can posit timeless manifolds).

Perhaps, though, you are thinking about fractals slightly differently and in a valid way. For others reading this, the most well known example of a fractal is the Mandelbrot set, which is simply a set of complex numbers that, when substituted into the equation fn(c)=fn-1(c)2+c, do not tend to infinity. The curious thing about this set is that at the edges of this set, we cannot tell whether a number will tend to infinity or not. We have to run the program, as it were, and find out. The funky images you see, like this one: Image (which is a little more complex than some, but it's the right size) just plot the set of numbers. In the middle, in black are all those numbers which certainly do not tend to infinity when plugged into the equation. At the edge of that black space, the pretty bit, are the set of numbers where we don't immediately know whether they tend to infinity or not.

Say we wanted to know if we had a particular number that was right on the edge (as far as we knew), whether or not it would tend to infinity it we incremented or decremented the number slightly (in either it's real or imaginary component). If it weren't for the fact that some people have already run these sorts of tests, we simply could not know because as we look closer and closer, the pretty patterns repeat over and over again once we start zooming in we start to lose all perspective and we cannot tell how "zoomed in" we are because the patterns are pretty much the same no matter how closely we look - and we can (notionally) zoom in forever and never will the patterns disappear. It is this self-similarity that we associate with fractals and what we can observe in nature - such as with coastlines.

(For those who have read the book "Contact" by Carl Sagan, and understood how the plans for the device were communicated to humans, this eternal zooming in provides another better option for communication from the designer - say we zoomed in to a quadrillion decimal places and suddenly started to see different types of patterns, patterns that could be interpreted - this would be similar to the idea of suddenly finding a string of 1000 zeroes in pi but would in fact be even more surprising since to the best of our knowledge the distribution of digits in pi is random and a string of 1000 zeroes is simply very highly unlikely rather than impossible. A change in nature of the Mandelbrot set at some depth would almost certainly be the signature of a designer. In fact, there could literally be a signature - after a bazillion "Mandelbrot bugs" we could start seeing the words "This Universe was Made by God: Please Use Responsibly" repeated over and over in various languages. Or, rather than seeing bugs, we could start seeing images of an old guy with a beard. Perhaps someone should tell the Discovery Institute?)

Now, back to you Leo. We can agree the Mandelbrot set is representative of its type, yes? The idea is that we repeat a simple process over and over again and an amazing complexity emerges. If so, is what you are talking about something like (noting that this is just representative):

Un(m-e,(x,y,z),t)=Un(m-e,(x,y,z),t-δt)+δt

In other words, the universe at any time t is a function of the state of the universe one sliver of time in the past (t-δt) plus that increment of time. I include space (albeit bracketed) because I think you are bonkers to dismiss space, in much the same way as I think that Spiral is bonkers to assume that nothing exists simply because one day he, you and I will be dead. I also include mass-energy (m-e).

Now to link this back to the Mandelbrot set, conceptually, there are certain future conditions that are impossible (and we can be certain that they are impossible) and there are certain future conditions which are certain (and we might be able to work out that they are certain) - but in between, where it is interesting, there are potential conditions, conditions that we simply cannot work out whether they will manifest or not. The only way we could do that is by running the program - creating a universe and running it in real time (and doing that is not cost effective).

Perhaps this sort of thinking does allow us to resolve some of the indeterminacy issues, and in doing so put paid to nonsense like Boltzmann brains in the process.

I think I can see why you might think that space is relatively unimportant, since an equation like that above is driven by time and time alone - but it doesn't mean that space doesn't exist. You still need to put stuff somewhere, you still need to have places in which events and processes can occur. John Archibald Wheeler apparently said "Time is what stops everything from happening at once" and perhaps we could say, of space, "Space is what stops everything from happening in the same place". However, there's more to it than that, energy has a spatial element - if it doesn't then it has at least four temporal components, of which three we could easily refer to as what they appear to be ... ie space.

I guess I am a little suspect of the "clever" thinking of both of you, Spiral and Leo, in that you have attempted to make the universe so much more complex than it needs to be by introducing the idea that nothing exists (when clearly something does, because you have logged into your computers in order to be able to read this) and the idea that space doesn't exist (when clearly space does exist, because you have moved from wherever you were, Leo, to wherever your computer is and moved keys in space in order to bring up this post). I'm much more interested in understanding how the universe works than I am in appearing to be clever about it.
  • neopolitan || neophilosophical.blogspot.com

    • The one who called himself God is, and always has been - Ariel Parik

      I am just going outside and may be some time - Oates (Antarctica, 1912)

      It was fun while it lasted ...
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021