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
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 »

Neopolitan wrote:Without space, the "speed of light" is a nonsense, Leo. I can't quite grasp why you don't realise that. It's almost like you've spent years convincing yourself of something and the only way you can now express it is that "it's bloody obvious". But it isn't. It's far from obvious.

(By the way, I am aware that saying that we travel through time at the "speed of light" may appear to have a similar issue, but it just means that travelling through 1 second of time per second of time (at spatial rest) is equivalent to travelling through space at 299792458m/s (at temporal rest).)
Neo,

What are your views to my questions in post my posts #146 and #148?
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.
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 »

Misty (to Leo) wrote:Leo <> said that space does not physically exist. What is between two points of measure?
I'm not so sure that we can measure between two points in space with any accuracy which is, I imagine, what is behind Einstein's talk of rods (a rod can be thought of as a ruler, if you are old enough to remember rulers ...). However, what exists between one end of a rod and the other end is, as far as I am concerned, space.
Misty (to Leo again) wrote:I do believe time is the unfolding of events. Forgive my ignorance, but is space/time in the heavens the same kind of space in a room? We measure a room to fit furniture into - how is that time?
From my perspective, space-time is space-time wherever it is. By "the heavens" I presume you mean (outer) space, which is just larger gaps between point-concentrations of mass-energy (ie those things that make up atoms, and/or the things that make up those things that make up atoms). Most of what exists is space, you and I are mostly space.

If you mean something more heaven-like, well, I consider heaven to be imaginary as you surely know.

I think that Leo is wrong about considering the space into which we fit our furniture as time. He's inconsistent anyway because he talks about spatial phenomena like gravitational lensing and the speed of light through space and gravity itself (which has a spatial component) and tries to use these phenomena as part and parcel of his argument that space doesn't exist.

Oddly, he also claims that "if space is not physical, which every philosopher in history has claimed, then when we spatialise time we conflate the physical with the non-physical" ... I don't think that every philosopher has actually made any such claim (in fact I'm struggling to think of one who does clearly make that claim). But in any event, Leo seems to be using a non-standard definition of physical. I don't know what he means by the term. Perhaps if I understood, then I could get a better understanding of how he he fits his furniture into his house.
  • 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 ...
Ruskin
Posts: 1573
Joined: March 30th, 2014, 2:18 pm

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Ruskin »

Neopolitan wrote:
If you mean something more heaven-like, well, I consider heaven to be imaginary as you surely know.
If heaven doesn't exist then where are good God fearing Christians supposed to go when they die then? I don't think you thought this through.
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 »

Ruskin wrote:
Neopolitan wrote:
If you mean something more heaven-like, well, I consider heaven to be imaginary as you surely know.
If heaven doesn't exist then where are good God fearing Christians supposed to go when they die then? I don't think you thought this through.
They go to hell like everyone else!
The Pattern Paradigm - yer can't beat it!
Ruskin
Posts: 1573
Joined: March 30th, 2014, 2:18 pm

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Ruskin »

A_Seagull wrote:
They go to hell like everyone else!
I don't think you would like God fearing Christians/believers in the one true God with you in hell as they would be whining and moaning at you all the time. Hell would just be for people who want nothing to do with that total horse **** free to do their own thing in Gods absence, in the Fathers house there are many rooms. Separation from God is a tormented abomination of an existence but people have the freedom of choice.
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 »

Neo. You may think of the speed of light as the iteration speed in the Mandelbrot set, or alternatively the processing speed of a non-linear computer.

Using spatial terminology in my explanation is unavaoidable because it is embedded in our language and without it any explanation would be incomprehensible. You may assume that any spatial references I make are temporal ones.

I define physically real exactly as it is defined in physics. An entity is definable as physically real if and only if it is able to effect change in another physically real entity. In Newtonian terminology this is called doing physical work, an accurate but rather confusing turn of phrase.

I'm going to be away interstate for a few days but I'll be back. To ameliorate your separation anxiety I'll set you some homework. In a time invariant universe how would chaotic processes be distinguishable from randomness? The question is a rhetorical one but the answer still requires some hard thinking. As a guide you might like to think about the weather.

Regards Leo
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13782
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Belinda »

Obvious Leo wrote:

quote]That we map our world rather than directly observe it is a proposition beyond dispute which predates Plato. Having this confirmed by 21st century science is helpful but quite unnecessary since it is bloody obvious. [/quote]


I thought that perhaps mapping our world instead of directly observing it ( directly as phenomena in time not space) is how we manage to understand entities as sufficiently permanent so that for instance the room which I left to go into the kitchen will still be here and much the same when I return to it, and moreover the room has remained in existence whilst I was not aware of it.

In his same post Leo wrote of time that it is what clocks measure. If Leo had instead written "Time is nothing other than that which is measured by clocks" he would have said something different. What Leo did write about time means that time exists regardless of measuring devices such as clockwork clocks, how long Leo can work without any sleep, how long a woman's term of pregnancy is etc. If time is nothing other than that which clocks measure then clocks create time in an inescapably relative universe.
Socialist
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 »

Ruskin wrote:
neopolitan wrote: If you mean something more heaven-like, well, I consider heaven to be imaginary as you surely know.
If heaven doesn't exist then where are good God fearing Christians supposed to go when they die then? I don't think you thought this through.
You know how sometimes someone totally inappropriate makes a joke and it doesn't quite come across as a joke, but rather as something a little creepy? Example: I once lived in a flat above a small general store which was presided over by a man we called Mr Happy because he was the most dour person we knew. One evening we noticed that we were out of toilet paper (something we normally bought from much the better priced and well-lit supermarket) and had to duck down to buy some. Mr Happy made some comment about us having guests based on the oddly timed purchase and it was quite jarring. He never made jokes and, in any event, bathroom activities are usually not discussed in public with people who are, effectively, strangers. (Also, he might have been accusing us of poor cooking or inadequate hygiene and given that we were uni students, he might have been justified.)

I put your response here, Ruskie, in the same category. I think it's a joke, but ... well, coming from you, it's jarring. From a fellow non-theist it would be amusing, since it'd be gentle mocking, but what do you intend from it? Are you now able to gently mock yourself or your fellow theists (the ones foolish enough to believe in a literal heaven perhaps)?

However, as pointed out in another recent post, it's not always obvious what should be taken literally on this sub-forum, so I'll answer literally, just in case. I suspect that we are headed for the same state, not a state of bliss and not a state of despair but rather a state of non-existence (the one that, for some reason, Spiral insists on calling "the Void"). As far as living friends and relatives of these "good God fearing Christians" - they can maintain their fantasy that the dead have gone to some hell or heaven or maybe even some sort of purgatory (there being a difference between "where they go" and "where they are supposed to go").

-- Updated January 6th, 2015, 10:23 pm to add the following --
Obvious Leo wrote:neo. You may think of the speed of light as the iteration speed in the Mandelbrot set, or alternatively the processing speed of a non-linear computer.
Hm, this is hand-waving. You still have a problem with what the speed of light actually manifests as, namely the speed which light appears to travel through space. Once you take away space, you have nothing despite all your talk about iteration speeds or processing speeds of a (metaphorical?) non-linear computer.
Obvious Leo wrote:Using spatial terminology in my explanation is unavaoidable because it is embedded in our language and without it any explanation would be incomprehensible. You may assume that any spatial references I make are temporal ones.
Understood, however, you repeatedly talk about spatial phenomena - phenomena that are only intelligible in terms of space.
Obvious Leo wrote:I define physically real exactly as it is defined in physics. An entity is definable as physically real if and only if it is able to effect change in another physically real entity. In Newtonian terminology this is called doing physical work, an accurate but rather confusing turn of phrase.
Ok, in that sense, I am happy with the idea that space itself isn't "physically real". But that's still a few steps away from saying that it doesn't exist. I think you are talking about the same sort of thing as referred to by Einstein in terms of "ponderable" when he spoke about the aether (my emphasis):
The big cheese wrote:Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
Neither space nor spacetime is a medium through which light passes not in which we are suspended, as briefly suggested with luminiferous aether. If that's all you mean, then we agree. But I think that that isn't all you mean.
Obvious Leo wrote:I'm going to be away interstate for a few days but I'll be back. To ameliorate your separation anxiety I'll set you some homework. In a time invariant universe how would chaotic processes be distinguishable from randomness? The question is a rhetorical one but the answer still requires some hard thinking. As a guide you might like to think about the weather.
Oh I am sure that I will survive, and if I need homework, there is plenty that has been set already by Patchy - I do wish you would stop picking up the habits of our theist friends ...

The answer to your little conundrum depends on what you mean by "time invariant". Nothing in the universe is really "time invariant" (except perhaps the minds of people like Patchy) if by "time invariant" we mean that no matter what the value of t was when we looked at something, it would be the same, this would mean there would be no change (and no apparent passage of time with respect to that thing). As we all know, if we looked closely enough at any real thing, we would see stuff whizzing around or at least jiggling in a lattice, entropy would be doing its stuff and heat would be being transferred. So let's ignore that, shall we?

Another way to look at "time invariant" would be to consider closed systems, of which the universe might be one. As a system these may well be "time invariant" in so much as certain aspects are subject to conservation - ie conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. No matter when you look at a closed system, as a system, the total energy will be the same and the total momentum within the system will not change. However, the invariance of the system, as a system, doesn't really tell us anything about the nature of the processes within the system - whether they are chaotic or random. Although ... the system isn't really random if it's limited to being invariant.

That said, no-one was suggesting a random universe, were they? So this seems to be a bit of a misdirection.

Ignoring the "time invariance" issue, we can tell that weather isn't random because we can predict it. But again, no-one was suggesting that the weather is random.
  • 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 ...
Ruskin
Posts: 1573
Joined: March 30th, 2014, 2:18 pm

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Ruskin »

Neopolitan wrote:
Ruskin wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

If heaven doesn't exist then where are good God fearing Christians supposed to go when they die then? I don't think you thought this through.
You know how sometimes someone totally inappropriate makes a joke and it doesn't quite come across as a joke, but rather as something a little creepy? Example: I once lived in a flat above a small general store which was presided over by a man we called Mr Happy because he was the most dour person we knew. One evening we noticed that we were out of toilet paper (something we normally bought from much the better priced and well-lit supermarket) and had to duck down to buy some. Mr Happy made some comment about us having guests based on the oddly timed purchase and it was quite jarring. He never made jokes and, in any event, bathroom activities are usually not discussed in public with people who are, effectively, strangers. (Also, he might have been accusing us of poor cooking or inadequate hygiene and given that we were uni students, he might have been justified.)

I put your response here, Ruskie, in the same category. I think it's a joke, but ... well, coming from you, it's jarring. From a fellow non-theist it would be amusing, since it'd be gentle mocking, but what do you intend from it? Are you now able to gently mock yourself or your fellow theists (the ones foolish enough to believe in a literal heaven perhaps)?
.

Oh yes we "cease to exist" when we die and you know this as a fact gotcha. Though feel free to explain how anyone can accomplish this when from their own point of view they already exist to begin with. You really do need need to give this atheism business up it is ridiculous I'm sorry. Yes I know we're meant to respect other peoples beliefs but not when they're this ridiculous. Are we meant to respect Scientology as well? Mormonism? Heavens Gate?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Sy Borg »

Neopolitan wrote:However, as pointed out in another recent post, it's not always obvious what should be taken literally on this sub-forum, so I'll answer literally, just in case. I suspect that we are headed for the same state, not a state of bliss and not a state of despair but rather a state of non-existence (the one that, for some reason, Spiral insists on calling "the Void"). As far as living friends and relatives of these "good God fearing Christians" - they can maintain their fantasy that the dead have gone to some hell or heaven or maybe even some sort of purgatory (there being a difference between "where they go" and "where they are supposed to go").
I note the backhanded swipe: "not a state of bliss".

That means you only accept the NDE accounts of those who experienced nothing and believe all reports of bliss and experiences as fabrications? This is just selectively dismissing evidence. Do you suspect that dying people who claimed experiences actually experienced and saw nothing and are making it all up? Given that we are talking about subjective near-death experiences none of this need suggest anything "supernatural", hence my surprise at your lack of scientific curiosity.

It appears to me that you have mixed up dear-death and actual death. You cannot rationally dismiss sensations of near-death bliss the way you have done, nor any of the other reported effects. As you yourself suggested earlier, these experiences may be triggered by the brain flooding the body with seretonin and other pain-inhibiting chemicals.

Look at my posts and you will see I never spoke of actual death as anything but an known. I spoke of the experience of dying, the moments of transition. So my previous comments about near-death bliss stand without valid contest at this stage. After death - no one knows.
Ruskin wrote:Oh yes we "cease to exist" when we die and you know this as a fact gotcha. Though feel free to explain how anyone can accomplish this when from their own point of view they already exist to begin with.
We also cease to exist when we are asleep or black out, just that we return when we wake. Why should we be more awake when we are dead than when we are asleep? How do you explain wakefulness in a disembodied entity that lacks a brain? How can it have emotions without glands?
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 »

So, I should have taken your question literally, Ruskie. Thanks, good to know.

I can't say with absolute certainty that there is nothing but a state of non-existence after death, having never died. But I have absolutely no convincing evidence in support of a post-life existence and the evidence provided by good people such as yourself merely acts to persuade me to think that there is no existence after death. But what I don't have is a "belief" in non-existence after death, I merely reckon, based on what evidence is available, that the likelihood of life after death is so tiny as to be functionally equivalent to certainty.

You don't have to worry about disrespecting my beliefs, Ruskie. If I have any unsupported beliefs, you are more than welcome to mock them. In fact, since you are going to anyway, you are welcome to presume that I have beliefs and mock those too. Then we can sit by and watch you get beaten up by your straw man.

-- Updated January 8th, 2015, 1:08 am to add the following --
Greta wrote:
neopolitan wrote:However, as pointed out in another recent post, it's not always obvious what should be taken literally on this sub-forum, so I'll answer literally, just in case. I suspect that we are headed for the same state, not a state of bliss and not a state of despair but rather a state of non-existence (the one that, for some reason, Spiral insists on calling "the Void"). As far as living friends and relatives of these "good God fearing Christians" - they can maintain their fantasy that the dead have gone to some hell or heaven or maybe even some sort of purgatory (there being a difference between "where they go" and "where they are supposed to go").
I note the backhanded swipe: "not a state of bliss".
The state of bliss may well be a transitional state on the way to the "final destination", namely non-existence. Much in the same way as when driving from California to New Mexico, you are likely to travel through Arizona (or Nevada, Utah and Colorado). I'm not denying that some people who have not died have experienced peace and calm. This is a key thing though, these people didn't make it to New Mexico.
Greta wrote:That means you only accept the NDE accounts of those who experienced nothing and believe all reports of bliss and experiences as fabrications? This is just selectively dismissing evidence.
I never implied that people deliberately fabricate their NDEs and far from dismissing some reports, I simply want to take all experiences into account rather than a selected sample. I'm also keen to take into account experiences such as G-LOC dreamlets (the experiences that pilots have when fainting under high-g). I actually think that it is enthusiasts of NDEs who selectively dismiss evidence (they also selectively collect evidence).
Greta wrote:Do you suspect that dying people who claimed experiences actually experienced and saw nothing and are making it all up? Given that we are talking about subjective near-death experiences none of this need suggest anything "supernatural", hence my surprise at your lack of scientific curiosity.
I'm not denying that these people had an experience commensurate with low oxygen to their brains, which they sometimes later interpret (subjectively) into something more important than it was. I'm quite curious scientifically, I'm just not going to rush headlong into pseudoscience.
Greta wrote:It appears to me that you have mixed up dear-death and actual death.
Not at all, although there are quite a few similarities between Arizona and New Mexico.
Greta wrote:You cannot rationally dismiss sensations of near-death bliss the way you have done, nor any of the other reported effects. As you yourself suggested earlier, these experiences may be triggered by the brain flooding the body with seretonin and other pain-inhibiting chemicals.
I've no issues with rational discussion of what experiences one might have when in a state similar to near death. It's the likelihood of irrational discussion the concerns me (which, in this sub-forum, is always a possibility).
Greta wrote:Look at my posts and you will see I never spoke of actual death as anything but an known. I spoke of the experience of dying, the moments of transition. So my previous comments about near-death bliss stand without valid contest at this stage. After death - no one knows.
An "unknown", perhaps? I agree that during the process of dying, we will have experiences - quite likely panic, but sometimes, a little bit later in the process, we might experience deep calm. I don't think that deep calm is the same as bliss. I'm not sure that this deep calm will be tinged with bliss, it's more likely to be tinged with regret - after all, we are never going to see our loved ones again. Perhaps those who have conquered all their doubts about an afterlife will be ecstatic that they about to meet their maker. Personally, I don't think they will be disappointed - but only because they won't exist as necessary in order to be disappointed.

I accept that it's possible that I don't understand bliss as you understand 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 ...
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Sy Borg »

Neopolitan wrote:I can't say with absolute certainty that there is nothing but a state of non-existence after death, having never died.
The level of certainty you display, despite what appears to be a politically correct disclaimer above, is typical of the overconfidence of learned people throughout every age of humanity; there are always those who are sure that their generation has reality largely sewn up, with only the details to be sorted out. One day we may reach that point but most scientists agree that we are a long way off, and the textbooks we have today will largely have to be rewritten in the future.
Neopolitan wrote:I never implied that people deliberately fabricate their NDEs and far from dismissing some reports, I simply want to take all experiences into account rather than a selected sample. I'm also keen to take into account experiences such as G-LOC dreamlets (the experiences that pilots have when fainting under high-g). I actually think that it is enthusiasts of NDEs who selectively dismiss evidence (they also selectively collect evidence).
I'm not interested in NDE enthusiasts. The issue at hand is that there are a range of NDEs - from nothing at all to what seem like schizophrenic fantasies - and that topic is worth exploration.
Neopolitan wrote:I'm not denying that these people had an experience commensurate with low oxygen to their brains, which they sometimes later interpret (subjectively) into something more important than it was. I'm quite curious scientifically, I'm just not going to rush headlong into pseudoscience.
Oh yes, that wicked "filosophical femme fatale" Greta is trying to lead poor innocent Neo screaming into the flaccid horrors of pseudoscience. Never mind, this apple will make you feel better ... :twisted:

Look at the facts. People are not only having experiences / dreams but exceptionally interesting ones. Surely the experiences at this most profound of transitions are of interest? We cannot ask zygotes or infants how it feels to be at the start of life but we can find out something of the experience of death and what it means, if anything. I find it profound and potentially illuminating. The easy option is to dismiss it as fantasy and ephemera - less easy to take the comments seriously and think about why the commonalities and differences exist in NDEs. Why do so many report bliss? Are there common factors to be found in the mode of death between those who black out and those who don't?

It comes down to whether you think real information can be gained by intuition. Many great discoveries came, not from experiment and math, but intuition. Don't you find it interesting how many ideas of Buddhism agreed with quantum mechanics? Obviously there are many differences (and entanglement only works at quantum scales, and once only) but it would seem that Buddhists did manage to intuit some of the ways phenomena work. Intuition is effective, just not reliable, hence the need for science.
Neopolitan wrote:I've no issues with rational discussion of what experiences one might have when in a state similar to near death. It's the likelihood of irrational discussion the concerns me (which, in this sub-forum, is always a possibility).
I'm not interested in ideology wars. Please save it for your preferred theist foes.
Neopolitan wrote:An "unknown", perhaps? I agree that during the process of dying, we will have experiences - quite likely panic, but sometimes, a little bit later in the process, we might experience deep calm. I don't think that deep calm is the same as bliss. I'm not sure that this deep calm will be tinged with bliss, it's more likely to be tinged with regret - after all, we are never going to see our loved ones again.

Jill Bolte Taylor et al - that is, those who have actually been through it - would disagree. "Bliss" is not an ambiguous word.
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 »

Greta,

My certainty, such as it is, is part of a much larger world view. It's not really constrained to NDEs but rather if NDEs are correct then the entire universe makes a lot less sense. Some people, mystics, for example, love it when the universe appears to make no sense - they almost seem to want the universe to not make sense. The more scientifically minded among us don't actually want the universe to not make sense, but are perfectly willing to admit that it doesn't make sense to them at this time - then they do their darnedest to resolve that issue.

As you might have noticed, I'm as fond of mysticism of the gaps as I am of the god of gaps. This is what I read into the whole "we might not know everything there is to know" argument you have going there. Perhaps I am wrong about that, but you certainly give the impression of being open to mystical stuff simply because we don't know all there is to know about psychology and the brain.
  • 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
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Sy Borg »

Neopolitan wrote:My certainty, such as it is, is part of a much larger world view. It's not really constrained to NDEs but rather if NDEs are correct then the entire universe makes a lot less sense. Some people, mystics, for example, love it when the universe appears to make no sense - they almost seem to want the universe to not make sense. The more scientifically minded among us don't actually want the universe to not make sense, but are perfectly willing to admit that it doesn't make sense to them at this time - then they do their darnedest to resolve that issue.
Many scientists would tell you they love nothing better than a mystery.
Neopolitan wrote:As you might have noticed, I'm as fond of mysticism of the gaps as I am of the god of gaps. This is what I read into the whole "we might not know everything there is to know" argument you have going there. Perhaps I am wrong about that, but you certainly give the impression of being open to mystical stuff simply because we don't know all there is to know about psychology and the brain.
No, you are right - I am open to all manner of mystical things exactly because we have the potential to learn so much more. We are currently limited by logistics and computing power (not to mention our filtered perception of our reality). When quantum computing become practical and affordable it will most likely change everything and, along with the development of AI and biotech advancements, we will be able to break barriers currently beyond us.

Look at the models before Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Hubble and Planck (etc). Each time we were found to be significantly underestimating the scope and complexity of reality. Are we nearing the end of the road to understanding reality with only detail to be tidied up? I suppose that's a matter of opinion but the weight of probability would appear to be with our continued and significant progress in understanding how reality works.

I have heard a number of scientists say that they believe in the future science textbooks will need to be radically rewritten.
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,

I'm presuming that when you get back from your interstate travel, you will be returning to our discussion. The break in discussion does give me an opportunity to address a couple of things: the non-existence of space that you keep claiming and the "aether" to which you seem to be averse.

Leo's non-existent space

You claim is that space is non-existent, in part, but I do hope not entirely, because you claim that space is an unnecessary assumption (claiming that X doesn't exist purely because X is not necessary is a fallacy, and one of Fanman's recent little strawmen). I'd like to demonstrate that, functionally, space or something basically the same as space is necessary.

One way to explain this is to think of your "events" that are going on in the universe. One event that you've mentioned a couple of times is the sun. Your argument is that the sun is not ~150 million kilometres away but rather it is ~8 minutes away. This is true, in a sense, because light from the surface of the sun takes about eight minutes to get to the Earth. However, that is because it takes 8 minutes to traverse the space between us and the sun. You argue that that space is an illusion and the sun in just 8 minutes away, full stop.

Ok, but you run into problems here because you immediately have at least two types of time. Imagine that the astronomers at the Royal Observatory in London report that there has been high sunspot activity over the past week. This means that in the past days they have observed imagery from the sun that includes evidence of sunspots, imagery based on photons that arrive 8 minutes after being generated. I'm note sure whether you can see the problem - but you are talking about "right now" time separation between us and the sun (8 minutes) and "now and then" time separation (say between "now" and "last Friday"). As well we have "there and there" time separation (distinguishing between two sunspots generated on the face of the sun at about the same time but at different locations).

Another way to explain is to run a little mind experiment. Put yourself into the middle of a form of panopticon, a sphere onto which images are projected. You are in the middle of this "space" so each of the images is separated from you by the same time - photons reach you at the same time from each point on the sphere. Inside the sphere, at half the "distance" between you and the sphere, are some plates that move around in "space" thus obscuring photons from the sphere (your hand could serve the same function, if you don't like the complexity of these plates). What your concept fails to explain, in any way, is how one particular separation in time of these plates (or your hand) prevents photons from reaching you and another separation in time (which will be the same duration in time) won't.

We reach a situation in which you must complicate your one dimensional temporal universe and provide either some additional dimensions of time (effectively creating spacetime) or just plain space. Even if this space isn't what you think some people think space is, it is still - pragmatically - space.

aether ain't aether either

You accused me at one point of being an aether theorist. I'm not, although I do realise that some conceptualisations of aether are not inconsistent with relativity. I see aether as being unnecessary, not necessarily as non-existent, and I am comfortable with the idea that, even if were to exist, it would be "imponderable". In other words, what I consider to possibly exist is more like a "manifold" than an aether. Something on which the universe is etched rather than something in which the things in the universe are immersed. Or, perhaps, the potentiality of the universe.

I see the universe as granular, there being a finite limitation to the possible divisions of time and space (although these are extraordinarily small they are not literally infinitesimal). I tend to think of these divisions as equivalent to Planck times and Planck lengths, but I'm not welded to those specific units handy though they might be. Each grain, being an event in the more specific sense, having dimensions of both space and time, may contain an amount of mass-energy anywhere between zero and one Planck energy (where one Planck volume containing one Planck energy is - almost by definition - a black hole with a Schwarzschild radius of one Planck length).

If you want to think about an array of these grains of spacetime as being an "aether" then fill your boots, but it's quite different to the standard conception of aether. They aren't really physical grains anyway, they could be thought of more like pockets in which things happen.

There are some interesting things we can do when thinking in these terms - for example we can understand the "speed of light" limitation, it's just the maximum speed at which something can move from one "grain" or "pocket" to the next, at one unit of Planck length per unit of Planck time. You can't move quicker than that without some magical teleportation mechanism. It's related to causation because a prerequisite for a photon being in a pocket is that the previous instant (one unit of Planck time ago) a neighbouring pocket has to have had a photon in it. (This is a simplification, of course, photons don't fit into a Planck volume.)

With that in mind, we can arrive at a sort of synchronisation of the universe that is technical impossible, but not conceptually impossible. Pick any instant of time and imagine a burst of light anywhere you like. Photons stream out from the burst. It is true that there are difficulties associated with saying that this event and any other event are simultaneous in relativity, because their apparent simultaneity or lack thereof is dependent on your frame (ie your motion) and physical location with respect the event. However, causality cannot be broken. This means that we can build up a sequence of events (or potential events) and from them order the "grains" of the universe and conceptually assess which are located in the same instant of time. This, if you like, provides us with a manifold of "now". No event in that manifold can, no matter how closely located in space, be a cause of any other event in that manifold.

Technically, the gathering of this data is impossible, but conceptually I don't see any problem with it - except perhaps the "ideological" objections that some devotees of relativity might raise.

----

Please note that I have quoted any luminaries, I am not relying on appeals to authority or "the bloody obvious" and I have tried to lay out my thoughts in a thorough and cogent manner without insulting anyone.

So, Leo, if you really have something worth considering with your spaceless universe paradigm, can you please try to do the same. Thanks.

(Note also that my blog contains quite a few articles which detail how the mathematics works with my conceptualisation and I have linked to some of those articles before. I'm not expecting you to mathematically model your paradigm, but equally, I am not expecting you to simply ignore fundamental issues with your paradigm because they are mathematically too complex for you.)
  • 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