Logically, nothing should exist.

[Obvious Leo]

I must read Kant .

Indeed you must. Although Manny observes the honourable German tradition of ensuring that his philosophy is unreadable, he nevertheless manages to carefully draw the distinction between truth and knowledge. The epistemology/ontology divide has exercised the minds of philosophers since long before Kant, but essentially his noumena and phenomena are precise analogues of Plato's Ideals and Forms. In the "Critique" Kant basically anticipates the modern world-views of psychology and neuroscience and places the observer in the role of active agent in determining the nature of our personal reality. Our truths are only as good as our understanding of them.

The modern psychologist of perception would say this: The observer does not observe the real world but rather he observes a representation of it presented to his senses in the form of information. From this information he constructs a mental map of reality in his own consciousness, which makes his comprehension of his world vulnerable to the hazards of confirmation bias. In other words rather than observing the real world we only MAP the world of our observation and the quality of our map is contingent on the validity of the prior information we use with which to construct it.

By "human reason", in the above context, do you mean rational and thus infallible reasoning such as mathematics,

I emphatically do not do not regard mathematical reasoning as infallible because it is valid only in its own domain.

"Mathematics can be used to prove anything"...Albert Einstein

"It is the theory which determines what the observer will observe"....Albert Einstein

Since physics is a purely mathematical discipline it is the most obvious one to use to illustrate the limitations of mathematical reasoning, because this is where Kant's cautionary warning is most relevant and most consistently ignored. The entire "science" of physics is based solely on observation. The physicist observes his world and compiles a database of its behaviour. From this data he identifies patterns which repeat themselves and thus infers the existence of physical laws which determine this behaviour and he is then able to use mathematics to formalise these laws. Kant would immediately recognise this as a flaw in first-order logic because these inferred laws are only applicable to the phenomenal world and not to the noumenal one. The physicist is modelling his observational map, which is necessarily predicated on the a priori assumptions he makes about the nature of his observation. His cognition of the object can only be confirmed by his cognition of the object, which in the "Critique" is insufficient for truth. If one or more of his a priori assumptions is false his entire house of cards collapses.

It is for this reason that physics is not a science but rather a branch of mathematics which allows us to make predictions about the behaviour of matter and energy. To be definable as a science it would need to be both predictive and explanatory but this method disqualifies itself from any explanatory authority because the entire mathematical extravaganza rests on the original a priori assumptions of the observer. If we design our models specifically to predict what the observer will observe we can claim only a Pyrrhic victory when the observer duly goes ahead and observes what his models have predicted. We can make no statement about the ontological validity of his observation because to attempt this is to do science backwards.

This is the "problem of induction" and it is one which was well understood by the early 20th century pioneers of modern physics, most notably Einstein, Planck and Bohr. Bohr even issued this salutary warning to his inheritors in the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics: "It is not the role of the physicist to determine what the universe is, but merely to determine what we can meaningfully say about its behaviour."

Sadly this salutary warning has been persistently ignored by those who followed in the footsteps of the pioneers. They fell in love with their own mathematical virtuosity and mistook their map for the territory. All manner of bizarre hypotheses have been advanced to account for their observations, none of which are accessible to reason and none of which make sense. Manny Kant would raise a contemptuous eyebrow and offer them this: " I bloody well told you there be dragons".

Regards Leo

-- Updated December 12th, 2014, 8:33 am to add the following --

I think I see why Omar Khayyam is your favourite philosopher, although I have not placed him as Illuminationist, which may be too supernatural for Omar.

Just catching up on your addendum which you must have posted whilst I was composing my reply. Omar was a process philosopher like me and thus had no need for the supernatural. He saw reality as that which is continuously being created according to no predetermined agenda and according to no physical law beyond the universal doctrine of causation. Spinoza's philosophy was not markedly different but for obvious reasons his ideas had a more European flavour. However they were both solidly wedded to the notion of the self-causal universe.

Regards Leo

[Belinda]

Obvious Leo wrote:

I emphatically do not do not regard mathematical reasoning as infallible because it is valid only in its own domain.

I don't understand this , because for instance for measuring land areas, such as famously the Nile Delta, the theorems of Euclid are valid tools of reasoning. Maths is applied to all sorts of other activities such as engineering, dress designing, IT, production and supply, etc. Mathematical reasoning wherever applied depends upon infallible axioms, or doesn't it?

[Neopolitan]

http://xkcd.com/263/

[Newme]

Our disagreement would indeed appear to be that while you consider consciousness and energy to be synonymous, I consider consciousness to be an emergent property, at least in part from that energy.

There's proof that consciousness is energy - even energy that continues after one's brain/body is dead. I challenge you to read "Proof of Heaven" by Neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander.

This topic is in the Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology forum so I am assuming that the point of contention here a the belief in the soul and the assumption of the existence of an eternal individual consciousness.

Without consciousness, there is indeed nothing. Subjective entities cannot view anything objectively. The Void is not a physical thing, it does not (apparently) negate the objective existence of the "universe", it negates the subjective existence of the "universe".

But then, to entirely subjective entities, there can be nothing else.

This concept also applies to psychology and mental health. Obviously, all thoughts are subjectively experienced, and there is no way to know for sure objectively if there is a meaningless void, or meaningful void. As it is now, we live in a meaningful void - where even the space (void) is full of meaningful air we desperately need to live.

[Obvious Leo]

Mathematical reasoning wherever applied depends upon infallible axioms, or doesn't it?

No it doesn't, a point most eloquently expressed by Albert Einstein in these two arresting quotes.

"Mathematics can be used to prove anything" and "It is the theory which determines what the observer will observe"

Mathematics is an infallible method but it can make no statement about the validity of the a priori axioms to which it is applied. The most famous example in science is the geocentric cosmology of Ptolemy. It is mathematically flawless and served as a remarkably accurate model for planetary motions for over a thousand years. His a priori assumption was that the earth is at the centre of the solar system.

Regards Leo

[Spiral Out]

There's proof that consciousness is energy - even energy that continues after one's brain/body is dead.

For the most part, I'm not at all in disagreement with what you've stated above. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it simply changes form. I would change "consciousness is energy" to "consciousness is an emergent property of energy".

Now, if you had said "there's proof that energy is consciousness - even consciousness that continues after one's brain/body is dead" then we'd be in disagreement.

It does not follow that consciousness continues on simply because the energy continues on.

My cup of coffee is energy. Is it conscious simply by virtue of containing energy? I think not.

The idea that consciousness continues after physical death is based on the innate Human fear of death. It is this desire for immortality that creates this fantasy.

If consciousness were to continue after physical death, it stands to reason that it would also have continued from before our birth. Yet we have no recollection of such a continuous consciousness. This is a critical flaw in the hypothesis of the Human soul and/or any continued consciousness.

There is simply no good/real/reasonable/logical/justifiable reason to believe in any continued consciousness after physical death. It's just wishful thinking.

The Void is real. The Void is reasonable. The Void is logical. The Void is justifiable. And most significant of all, the Void is provable.

Logically, nothing does exist. Think about these words.

[Newme]

Spiral,

Consciousness is 100% dependent on a brain obviously stops after the brain ceases functioning, but as the book I mentioned explained, there's proof that consciousness exists that is not dependent on brain activity, and continues despite. And as we agree that consciousness is energy and energy never zaps out of existence, but changes form. Don't let your skepticism turn into dogma.

Btw, I hope you & yours have a great Christmas.

[Misty]

The simple fact that anything exist is impossible. In pondering where existence derived, if one tries to really hard to "remember" you get an intense nothingness, a block. This simple idea has driven some mad to the point of suicide. Even the theory of the big bang is not true by asking, Where did it come from? God? if so, where did God come from? The deeper one goes in thought the more impossible it is. Of course one could just say, you are a mortal being who's thoughts are too narrow to contemplate such deep things. And only God or for some, the many gods, can truly understand. Nothing is real due to the fact that it is impossible for anything to exist. Prove me wrong.

Prove yourself right.

[Spiral Out]

there's proof that consciousness exists that is not dependent on brain activity, and continues despite.

What is their proof that a consciousness exists that is not dependent on brain activity?

And as we agree that consciousness is energy and energy never zaps out of existence, but changes form.

We do not agree that consciousness and energy are entirely interchangeable concepts.

There's proof that consciousness is energy - even energy that continues after one's brain/body is dead.

I agree that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it simply changes form. I would change "consciousness is energy" to "consciousness is an emergent property of energy" (and brain structure, of course).

Now, if you had said "there's proof that energy is consciousness - even consciousness that continues after one's brain/body is dead" then we'd be in disagreement.

It does not follow that consciousness continues on simply because the energy continues on.

My cup of coffee is energy. Is it conscious simply by virtue of containing energy? I think not.

The idea that consciousness continues after physical death is based on the innate Human fear of death. It is this desire for immortality that creates this fantasy.

If consciousness were to continue after physical death, it stands to reason that it would also have continued from before our birth. Yet we have no recollection of such a continuous consciousness. This is a critical flaw in the hypothesis of the Human soul and/or any continued consciousness.

There is simply no good/real/reasonable/logical/justifiable reason to believe in any continued consciousness after physical death. It's just wishful thinking.

The Void is real. The Void is reasonable. The Void is logical. The Void is justifiable. And most significant of all, the Void is provable.

Logically, nothing exists.

Don't let your skepticism turn into dogma.

Don't let your naiveté turn into dogma.

I hope you & yours have a great Christmas.

Thanks Newme. And you as well!

[Sy Borg]

Spiral, to check understanding, what you refer to as The Void is the parent, continued bedrock and eventual consumer of what we think of as "something" - the space in which something resides. Is that close?

[Spiral Out]

Not really.

Answer this question: How do you know there is something?

[Neopolitan]

It amazes me that this vacuous topic continues to exist. There is nothing (ie nothing worse than extended discussions that contain nothing that clarifies the content, nothing about what nothing means, nothing about what something means, nothing about what "the void" means, nothing about what existence means in this context, nothing about what "should" is intended to mean and precious little about logic).

Logically, this amount of nothing should not be permitted to exist. I have nothing more to say.

[Sy Borg]

Not really.

Answer this question: How do you know there is something?

The combined observations of people, including me plus observed behaviour of animals. I think you'd have to redefine "something" and "nothing" to say that something does not exist and there is only nothing.

[Spiral Out]

Answer this question: How do you know there is something?

The combined observations of people, including me plus observed behaviour of animals.

The critical part of my question in being posed to a singular individual subject is the you in "how do you know there is something?".

Thus the only relevant part of Greta's answer is "The […] observations of […] me […] The rest is irrelevant.

The only way one can know there is something is that they can observe it themselves. It follows that if one cannot make this observation themselves then they cannot know that something exists. Therefore, nothing would exist.

There is only "something" because we can observe it. Otherwise, there is nothing.

Also, when one can no longer form the concept of there being "something" then the something ceases and becomes nothing. The existence of something is dependent upon the conscious observation of a sentient entity.

Since Humans only possess a singular independent consciousness, and are not part of a collective consciousness, the individual's observation is all that is relevant to the consideration of the question.

Without the individual conscious recollection of the observation of this "something" having ever existed, the "something" thus does not exist and has never existed. This is the Void.

Being that the Void does not posses the concept of time, the Void is eternal. None of 'this' ever happened. It only happened if you can recall it. When your consciousness is gone, you will not recall any of this, therefore it never happened.

Since the Void does not exist in time, it is eternal. Time is our perception of changes of state. If nothing changes then time ceases to exist. The Void does not change.

Existence (something) is contained entirely within itself.

The question of "why is there something rather than nothing" is a fundamentally flawed (pseudo)question because there is nothing. There is nothing because it will come to pass that none of 'this' (something) will ever be recalled.

Bottom line: Logically, nothing exists.

I think you'd have to redefine "something" and "nothing" to say that something does not exist and there is only nothing.

The "nothing" that we're speaking of is the Void. It is known that the "something" we're speaking of is what we call the "Universe". Therefore the "nothing" that we're speaking of is the absolute absence of this "something". Since we can only know this "something" exists through our conscious observation and recollection, the "something" ceases to exist when this conscious observation and recollection no longer exists.

Relative to the individual subject, again since we are not part of a collective consciousness, if there is no individual conscious observation of this Universe then there is nothing: there is only the Void.

Upon the cessation of this individual conscious observation, and without any conscious recollection of any previous observation, the Universe also ceases to exist and there is only the Void, and nothing had ever existed to the individual consciousness.

We cannot logically make claim that when we are dead and gone the universe will continue to exist because that is a projection of our consciousness beyond its natural boundary of conscious observation and recollection (knowledge).

Only when one can assert this claim from the grave will it be relevant to the consideration of the something/nothing question.

It is a critical logical error to consider the individual conscious observations of any other entity when forming and presenting our arguments in such a matter.

[Misty]

I think you'd have to redefine "something" and "nothing" to say that something does not exist and there is only nothing.

The "nothing" that we're speaking of is the Void. It is known that the "something" we're speaking of is what we call the "Universe". Therefore the "nothing" that we're speaking of is the absolute absence of this "something". Since we can only know this "something" exists through our conscious observation and recollection, the "something" ceases to exist when this conscious observation and recollection no longer exists.

Relative to the individual subject, again since we are not part of a collective consciousness, if there is no individual conscious observation of this Universe then there is nothing: there is only the Void.

Upon the cessation of this individual conscious observation, and without any conscious recollection of any previous observation, the Universe also ceases to exist and there is only the Void, and nothing had ever existed to the individual consciousness.

We cannot logically make claim that when we are dead and gone the universe will continue to exist because that is a projection of our consciousness beyond its natural boundary of conscious observation and recollection (knowledge).

Only when one can assert this claim from the grave will it be relevant to the consideration of the something/nothing question.

It is a critical logical error to consider the individual conscious observations of any other entity when forming and presenting our arguments in such a matter.

The universe existed before your birth to be able to accept you into it, thus making you able to observe it. It has done this for the generations before you and those born after you. This shows me there is "something" beyond my own consciousness/observations.

You speak of the "Void" as something, so you destroy your own theory.