A completed theory of everything!

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;143064 wrote:

Nothing has to exist though. Why would you think that? You're talking about necessity and the only things that are necessary are tautologies. Tautologies are necessarily true. However, they are also empty. It is necessarily true that "it will either rain or not rain tomorrow" but it says nothing about the weather.

I know that "necessity" tend to be analytic statements, and some other things( the notion of identities, which are not relevant here).

In spite of that, i am committed to the proposition that "there had to be something that exist". This does not commit me to:

1. There is a particular thing that exist.

What i am positing is that :

2. There is something x, such that x has the property of self existence.

I grant that whatever x is, x is very mysterious indeed. Personally, i think a candidate for x is that "all worlds exist". i have to admit, i don` t know.

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 11:31 AM ----------

ughaibu;143066 wrote:

But this question is illegitimate, as has been explained to you before, because if there are laws then those laws are random, so there is no"why"!

No! What you mean by "the laws is random" is really the same as saying "the laws are brute facts". There is no contradiction in rejecting that brute. This is the same as saying "the big bang is a brute fact" , but this does not stop people from asking questions.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;143070 wrote:

2. There is something x, such that x has the property of self existence.

I think you have completely stepped outside the realm of anything even remotely based on scientific methodology. How could such a claim ever be verified, falsified, or even tested for? I don't mean that it's impractical, we don't live long enough or we don't have the technology right now. I'm talking about even in principle. This property of self-existence sounds very unscientific.

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;143075 wrote:

I think you have completely stepped outside the realm of anything even remotely based on scientific methodology. How could such a claim ever be verified, falsified, or even tested for? I don't mean that it's impractical, we don't live long enough or we don't have the technology right now. I'm talking about even in principle. This property of self-existence sounds very unscientific.

You said it is:

1. unverifiable.

2. sounds unscientific.

reply to 1:
That statement you quoted as being unverifiable in not a scientific statement.
This is because the issue is more general, fundamental, and firmly part of metaphysics. The statement is a metaphysical statement about the nature of reality. Like all metaphysically statements, they are not scientific statements, nor are they statements that could be verified. This does not mean we do not have good reason to be believe in such statements, nor does it tell us they are false. There are indeed good reasons to believe that something had to exist, and there are lengthy books on it. If you want to question the authority of metaphysics, then it is not really the problem here. All i am saying is that there are good reasons to believe there had to be something that exist.

reply to 2:
It can sound like whatever you want. This seems to be your own personal demon.

2 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;143089 wrote:

...nor are they statements that could be verified. This does not mean we do not have good reason to be believe in such statements...

Well I disagree. Why would you believe in something you couldn't, even in principle, have evidence for? That might just be another personal demon though.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;143092 wrote:

Well I disagree. Why would you believe in something you couldn't, even in principle, have evidence for? That might just be another personal demon though.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;143094 wrote:

I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the claim that it has to exist. I take the existence of the universe as a contingent brute fact. It just is, for no reason.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;143091 wrote:

It is logically possible that there are two disjointed space-time. You can call them different universe/multiverse. That is not my problem. If our universe does come from a mother universe, then this mother universe would also in a temporal-spatial relation with us. If such is the case, then we life in a multiverse, but this multiverse can be spatial-temporal disjointed from some other spatial-temporal manifold, or objects.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;143095 wrote:

I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the claim that it has to exist. I take the existence of the universe as a contingent brute fact. It just is, for no reason.

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 12:46 PM ----------

TuringEquivalent;143096 wrote:

It is logically possible that there are two disjointed space-time. You can call them different universe/multiverse. That is not my problem. If our universe does come from a mother universe, then this mother universe would also in a temporal-spatial relation with us. If such is the case, then we life in a multiverse, but this multiverse is spatial-temporal disjointed from some other spatial-temporal manifold, or objects.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

What is this got to do with the topic?

Quote:

I don ` t have any opinion about. I know that hawking radiation allow black holes to radiate away their energy until there is no holes anymore. It is said to cause problems for things that fall into the black hole. In any case, it is not related to the topic. I suppose the reason you bring it up is not because it is related to the topic. Am i right?

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;143027 wrote:

I said the physical universe began some 13 billion years ago. By saying this, i made no commitment to:

1. the universe come from nothing( which is absurd).

2. There is some preceding state before the big bang.

3. Our universe is form from a preceding universe( mother universe).

I might not commit to 1-3, but i do thing 2-3 are very likely. I am not sure. Again: i am not sure( not something you read often)

Is this a statement of fact or is it your belief? If we have no evidence prior to the BB, its pure conjecture. So where do you see originality?

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;143107 wrote:

What is this got to do with the topic?
...if not, why two rather then one ?

I don ` t have any opinion about. I know that hawking radiation allow black holes to radiate away their energy until there is no holes anymore. It is said to cause problems for things that fall into the black hole. In any case, it is not related to the topic. I suppose the reason you bring it up is not because it is related to the topic. Am i right?

On the contrary, is fully related...if you consider that two disjointed Universes have to be necessarily entangled to make any sense...
...if not, why two rather then one ?

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;143108 wrote:

Is this a statement of fact or is it your belief? If we have no evidence prior to the BB, its pure conjecture. So where do you see originality?

There are good metaphysical stances one can take, but how much confidence you give to them is something you have to work out yourself.

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 01:30 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;143109 wrote:

On the contrary, is fully related...if you consider that two disjointed Universes have to be necessarily entangled to make any sense...
...if not, why two rather then one ?

If two universe are entangle as in a quantum mechanical multiverse, i don ` t see how they are dispointed universes at all. The effects one make in one universe would have a direct effect on the other, so this seem to implies that they have causal relation with one another. How is that disjointed? Also, they are are entangled, would that not mean there is a single wavefunction that represent the two entangled worlds. If so, then this wavefunction is one thing. How is this disjointed?

2 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

This is not metaphysics but logic from what we know, not what we presume.

2 Replies

@xris,

so does this TOE include Cosmic Plasma ?

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;143133 wrote:

This is not metaphysics but logic from what we know, not what we presume.

If you make claims about the world that are not verifiable even in principle. It is a pretty good guess that those claims are metaphysical claims.

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 02:04 PM ----------

north;143138 wrote:

so does this TOE include Cosmic Plasma ?

Yep. Is that not great?

3 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

Quote:
Originally Posted by north

http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif

so does this TOE include Cosmic Plasma ?

Quote:

Yep. Is that not great?

absolutely

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;143139 wrote:

If you make claims about the world that are not verifiable even in principle. It is a pretty good guess that those claims are metaphysical claims.

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 02:04 PM ----------

Yep. Is that not great?

So whose being metaphysical, you or me?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;143097 wrote:

With no belligerence, how in the well do you think that is plausible ???

That the universe exists for no reason seems to be the conservative answer. Going back to the earlier analogy for what the world rests on, while it may seem amazing that the world rests on nothing, it would be even more amazing if it rested on an elephant and a turtle which themselves rested on nothing. At some point you just have to accept that something exists without reason.

2 Replies

A completed theory of everything!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know