Why There is Something—And Further Extensions
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Why There is Something—And Further Extensions
So, Something had to ever be, it having no alternative, with no option not to be, with no opposite, and with no possibility of it coming from the impossible ‘Nothing’. The Something, then, is eternal, in that it is uncreated can never go away. It is Permanent as the Causeless Cause of what comes forth of it, which can only be temporaries.
The Something cannot be still and unmoving, for then naught could have become as the temporary happenings that we take as something. ‘The impossible Stillness’ thus gains single quote marks, akin to its relative of ‘Nothing’, neither one able to be.
So, the Permanent Something of Necessity as the only true and lasting real thing can only form the temporaries through various arrangements of itself in such a way that it ever remains as itself. It has to do this because it cannot be still and is thus energetic and so it has motion within it.
Its nature has to be that the Something is the simplest state of being, as partless, for it would not be Fundamental as the only cause it if were composed of parts whose fundamentality preceded its own. It also has to be continuous, because it is both unbreakable and unmakeable, not to mention again that it cannot have spacers of the nonexistent ‘Nothingness’ in it. The Something is thus an Existent that cannot not be, and that is that!
So, then, the lesser, which in this case is the least, gives rise to the elementaries, the composites, and the complex, as the temporary universe, which from our point of view as one of the temporaries might might call it to be ‘greater’ in the sense that the temporary is more interesting than the simple base alone, much grander in its splendor of multiplicity, even.
The transcendental notion of the lesser having to come from a greater can now be totally thrown out, as another Impossible, and, besides, the notion leads to an infinite regress. That template is dead. It is also that not anything composite can be Fundamental, not even tiny proton, much less anything more composite or even infinitely complex, such as a Great Mind, begging the ‘question’ that didn’t even have to be begged.
So, we have the Truth, but out of curiosity as well as for the ultimate satisfaction from the Proof of confirmation, we look for the physical support to the philosophy of logic in the physics of science.
The quantum vacuum with is overall quantum field fits the bill to a T: the rather persisting elementaries form from excitations at the stable rungs of energy quanta in the quantum field. The elementaries don’t get quantized; they are the quanta. We know the rest of the story. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) gave us all of physics.
Universes may come and go, but the Permanent Existent ever remains, and anything can become of it.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Why There is Something—And Further Extensions
It could be asked what is 'something' or 'anything'? In what you have written above, I would presume you are talking about 'fields' and this leads me to wonder about the nature of memory inherent in fields. But, when you speak of something, I think that you are referring to matter, but what is matter exactly and where did that come from? So, it may come back to the basic question as to whether matter created itself or 'something' beyond the physical triggered this. Of course, it is hard to disentangle, but it may still come down to the issue of consciousness and, is it present befote anything or a later emergent reality?
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: Why There is Something—And Further Extensions
I'd put it differently: Universes may come and go but the fabrications [constructions] of thought will never end [at least as long as there are human organisms].PoeticUniverse wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 2:37 am Universes may come and go, but the Permanent Existent ever remains, and anything can become of it.
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Why There is Something—And Further Extensions
If something whatever is the case, isn't there something, viz. a case at least? Are cases nonentities?PoeticUniverse wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 2:37 amIf a complete lack of anything were the case, then there would not be anything;…
"2. What is the case—a fact—is the existence of states of affairs.
2.01 A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects (things)."
(L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)
So cases are states of affairs or facts. However, to acknowledge the existence of states of affairs or facts in general isn't necessarily to acknowledge the existence of negative states of affairs or facts such as Joe Biden's not being the president of Germany. But if one ontologically accepts negative states of affairs or facts, then one can accept there being nothing or that nothing exists as a possible negative state of affairs or fact. However, this absolutely negative existentially quantified state of affairs or fact wouldn't be "a combination of objects (things)", but an abstract entity not including, not composed of any objects or things.
"…it fails to distinguish appropriately between the existence of things on the one hand and the obtaining of facts on the other, and supplementarily also between specifically substantival facts regarding existing things, and nonsubstantival facts regarding states of affairs that are not dependent on the operation of preexisting things. – Note too that the question of the existence of facts is a horse of a very different color from that of the existence of things. There being no things is undoubtedly a possible situation, there being no facts is not (since if the situation were realized, this would itself constitute a fact)."
(Rescher, Nicholas. The Riddle of Existence: An Essay in Idealistic Metaphysics. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984. p. 17)
There is a logical difference betweenPoeticUniverse wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 2:37 am…however, there is something and so a lack of anything could not have been the case,…
(1) "If there is something, then there isn't nothing."
and
(2) "If there is something, then there couldn't have been nothing."
1 is an obvious logical truth, but it doesn't entail the truth of 2.
"Our conceptual machinery breaks down in trying to explicate the idea of pure nothing."PoeticUniverse wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 2:37 am…and so that notion is out and done with. Nothing’ cannot even be meant, much less have any properties or be productive, and so even any notion of it is forever squashed.
(Hartshorne, Charles. "Could There Have Been Nothing? A Reply." Process Studies 1/1 (1971): 25-28. p. 25)
Well, the trouble starts when absences, lacks, or dearths are reified.
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: Why There is Something—And Further Extensions
I'll take "matter" here as like the basic physical something of the quantum vacuum with its overall quantum field… and say that there can be no "come from" for what is eternal and is therefore permanent.JackDaydream wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 6:27 am but what is matter exactly and where did that come from?
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Why There is Something—And Further Extensions
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: Why There is Something—And Further Extensions
Well, there has to be a Fundamental Existent, X, because nonexistence cannot be. Thus it is mandatory and it is all there is, as the simplest partless and continuous state, for it cannot be composite and still be Fundamental. it can't make anything different than itself, but it can rearrange itself into rather persistent but temporary forms such as the elementary 'particles' that are excitations of it at stable rungs of field energy quanta; thus it as X is the quantum vacuum with its overall quantum field.JackDaydream wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2021, 9:37 am it does not mean that these represent the entire truth.
So, we have the logic in accord with science. Can't beat that! It is proved and cannot be undone! It made a temporary universe and it is ever there to make another.
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Why There is Something—And Further Extensions
Are you familiar with the ancient concept of "aether?" Perhaps space isn't empty.PoeticUniverse wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 2:37 am If a complete lack of anything were the case, then there would not be anything; however, there is something and so a lack of anything could not have been the case, and so that notion is out and done with. Nothing’ cannot even be meant, much less have any properties or be productive, and so even any notion of it is forever squashed.
So, Something had to ever be, it having no alternative, with no option not to be, with no opposite, and with no possibility of it coming from the impossible ‘Nothing’. The Something, then, is eternal, in that it is uncreated can never go away. It is Permanent as the Causeless Cause of what comes forth of it, which can only be temporaries.
The Something cannot be still and unmoving, for then naught could have become as the temporary happenings that we take as something. ‘The impossible Stillness’ thus gains single quote marks, akin to its relative of ‘Nothing’, neither one able to be.
So, the Permanent Something of Necessity as the only true and lasting real thing can only form the temporaries through various arrangements of itself in such a way that it ever remains as itself. It has to do this because it cannot be still and is thus energetic and so it has motion within it.
Its nature has to be that the Something is the simplest state of being, as partless, for it would not be Fundamental as the only cause it if were composed of parts whose fundamentality preceded its own. It also has to be continuous, because it is both unbreakable and unmakeable, not to mention again that it cannot have spacers of the nonexistent ‘Nothingness’ in it. The Something is thus an Existent that cannot not be, and that is that!
So, then, the lesser, which in this case is the least, gives rise to the elementaries, the composites, and the complex, as the temporary universe, which from our point of view as one of the temporaries might might call it to be ‘greater’ in the sense that the temporary is more interesting than the simple base alone, much grander in its splendor of multiplicity, even.
The transcendental notion of the lesser having to come from a greater can now be totally thrown out, as another Impossible, and, besides, the notion leads to an infinite regress. That template is dead. It is also that not anything composite can be Fundamental, not even tiny proton, much less anything more composite or even infinitely complex, such as a Great Mind, begging the ‘question’ that didn’t even have to be begged.
So, we have the Truth, but out of curiosity as well as for the ultimate satisfaction from the Proof of confirmation, we look for the physical support to the philosophy of logic in the physics of science.
The quantum vacuum with is overall quantum field fits the bill to a T: the rather persisting elementaries form from excitations at the stable rungs of energy quanta in the quantum field. The elementaries don’t get quantized; they are the quanta. We know the rest of the story. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) gave us all of physics.
Universes may come and go, but the Permanent Existent ever remains, and anything can become of it.
http://keplerspaceinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/JSP-Spr-2013-13_ODonnell-Final.pdf
Is Ether Real?
Is there an Aether/Ether? Yes there is. Although the concept dates back over 2000
years, it is still alive and well and is indeed thriving.
Throughout the centuries, since around 360 BC, philosophers and physicists have been
discussing Aether. The manner in which Plato used the word was that Aether (Ἀἰθήρ)
referred to the bright, untainted upper atmosphere in which the gods dwell, as distinct
from the dense lower atmosphere, which was Aer (Ἀήρ). Plato, in his Timaeus,
described Aether as that “which God used in the delineation of the universe.”
1
Aristotle expanded on this idea and expressed his view that this force was vital to the
terrestrial elements, those being earth, water, air, and fire. He classified Aether as the
“fifth element” (the quintessence). Aristotle believed the four terrestrial elements were
subject to change and moved naturally in straight lines; whereas no change had been
observed in the celestial regions and the heavenly bodies moved in circles. In Aristotle’s
system, Aether:
had no qualities (was neither hot, cold, wet, or dry),
was incapable of change (with the exception of change of place),
by its nature moved in circles,
had no contrary, or unnatural, motion.
2
Today “Aether,” also spelled “Ether,” is defined as follows: “in physics, a theoretical,
universal substance believed during the 19th century to act as the medium for
transmission of electromagnetic waves (e.g., light and X rays) much as sound waves
are transmitted by elastic media such as air. The Ether was assumed to be weightless,
transparent, frictionless, undetectable chemically or physically, and literally permeating
all matter and space.”3
It has also recently been described as the medium which fills the
“empty space.”4
In the newer concept as presented here it is spelled Ether, with a capital E. This
reminds us that Ether is a conduit of Energy and is a product of an Era gone by, an
Antecedent Estate, an older and Easier dimension.
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Why There is Something—And Further Extensions
We're talking about and thereby referring to it, aren't we?PoeticUniverse wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 10:46 pmOK, 'Nothing' cannot even be meant, as Parmenides told.
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Why There is Something—And Further Extensions
We can use the phrase "the absence of everything" to refer to the absence of everything, can't we?PoeticUniverse wrote: ↑November 24th, 2021, 5:31 pmYes, mostly about that 'it' can't be an it.
Suppose in our imagination we remove all there is. Can we then refer to it?
However, the thought experiment of trying to arrive at nothing(ness) by removing everything in succession becomes illogical at the final step: …The last thing is removed, and then there is no thing (nothing) anymore. For the removal of things is a temporal process, and the expression "and then" presupposes a temporal order or structure in terms of before (earlier) and after (later) that would contradictorily continue to exist even after everything has ceased to be. The very idea of there being nothing after there being something, or of there being nothing now is self-contradictory, because there can be no time when nothing exists, or a time after or later than all the times when something existed. There aren't any possible temporal relations such as temporal posteriority between nonbeing and being; so the process of removing things from the world couldn't possibly result in an absent world, but in an empty world at most. And, of course, an empty world or spacetime (* is still something rather than nothing—like an empty canvas.
(* "empty" in the sense of "devoid of, unoccupied by matter and energy")
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Why There is Something—And Further Extensions
Note that the situation is no less illogical (due to a temporal contradiction) if you try to remove all things at once rather than one by one!
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023