45
   

How can something come from nothing?

 
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:19 am
@Frank Apisa,
It's something I know for certain. Time is a concept, epistemological and psychological. Fresco is right on this one.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:23 am
@fresco,
Quote:
I think we need to remember that our knowledge of "this universe" is a function of our interaction with it. In that sense, physicists have have coined the term "space-time" to indicate the inseparable nature of those concepts as revealed by our recent interactions (experiments). This means that "time" depends on the observer's reference frame and has no independent status outside of that. (And for Frank's benefit: that is indeed what we know in this case).


We do not KNOW this any more than we KNOW what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang. But it is interesting that your cult requires you to do the same thing Christians do with regard to a GOD.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:24 am
@Ding an Sich,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5200781)
It's something I know for certain. Time is a concept, epistemological and psychological. Fresco is right on this one.


It may be so...I am inclined to think it is.

BUT I DO NOT KNOW IT...and I strongly suspect neither do you or Fresco.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:29 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with my reply to Fresco


Inside the box the projectile falls under what is then defined as gravity. Outside it does not fall. Hence no gravity. Both know "for certain".
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:32 am
@spendius,
Einstein posited the thought experiment.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:50 am
@Ding an Sich,
I cannot imagine how it will ever be determined whether or not something has come from NOTHING. I must be a skeptic regarding such metaphysical notions such as "nothing-ness" and "thing-ness". Language exists (and we exist) because of its usefulness, indeed, its essential-ness. Words emerge and persist to the extent that they work to promote our survival (and other practical--and admittedly, decorative, tasks).
But just look at "nothing": in practical terms I might communicate to someone that there is "nothing" inside a particular box (viz. it is empty of objects). But here I am not suggesting the more metaphysical term, "nothingness," as if there were some kind of ontological "event horizon" within it. And my omission would be mainly because it would not be useful (or sensible) to do so.
Regarding "thingness", I cannot separate an essential thingness from its "accidental" properties. If I remove from an apple its perceived properties of roundness, redness, taste, weight, nutritional effects, etc. etc.would I be subtracting qualities from an actual abstract but propertyless "thing'?
As far as I can tell the "apple" is simply a collection of properties or experiences.*

*And as an aside (and--at a more mystical level--it is also me since I am my experiences.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:51 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5200856)
Quote:
I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with my reply to Fresco


Inside the box the projectile falls under what is then defined as gravity. Outside it does not fall. Hence no gravity. Both know "for certain".


Huh???
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:52 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Einstein posited the thought experiment.


One: You are no Einstein.

Two: I hope he did a better job positing it than you did.
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:57 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5200781)
It's something I know for certain. Time is a concept, epistemological and psychological. Fresco is right on this one.


It may be so...I am inclined to think it is.

BUT I DO NOT KNOW IT...and I strongly suspect neither do you or Fresco.


How do you know that you do not know it? And what would lead you suspect that neither Fresco and I know it?

I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 09:58 am
@Ding an Sich,
Reality is also a concept--that does not mean that reality has no existence beyond our cognition. The electron decay of elemental isotopes, which is consistent over "time," and among observers all over the planet is sufficient evidence for me that time also is not solely dependent upon our perception.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 10:02 am
@Ding an Sich,
Quote:
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5200956)
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5200781)
It's something I know for certain. Time is a concept, epistemological and psychological. Fresco is right on this one.


It may be so...I am inclined to think it is.

BUT I DO NOT KNOW IT...and I strongly suspect neither do you or Fresco.


How do you know that you do not know it? And what would lead you suspect that neither Fresco and I know it?

I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.


I'm not interested in that nonsense, Ding. I strongly suspect you do not know ...and I will leave it at that.

I will say this, however: The dogma of the non-duality cult is very interesting.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 10:08 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Reality is also a concept--that does not mean that reality has no existence beyond our cognition. The electron decay of elemental isotopes, which is consistent over "time," and among observers all over the planet is sufficient evidence for me that time also is not solely dependent upon our perception.


I agree that reality does have some existence beyond our cognition, but I disagree with time being independent of us, much like how I disagree with mathematics, logic, and an assortment of other areas of knowledge, being independent of us. Change is independent of us, while time is a way in which we measure phenomena. The one is reality based, while the other is an epistemological tool used for pragmatic purposes.

And fresco will reply, in his usual correlationist manner, that thought cannot be separated from being, and neither being from thought. So reality is a concept which only pertains to how we are receptive to, and observe, phenomena. To talk about a reality beyond that is nonsense. He'll say something along those lines (if he hasn't said it already).
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 10:12 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5200956)
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5200781)
It's something I know for certain. Time is a concept, epistemological and psychological. Fresco is right on this one.


It may be so...I am inclined to think it is.

BUT I DO NOT KNOW IT...and I strongly suspect neither do you or Fresco.


How do you know that you do not know it? And what would lead you suspect that neither Fresco and I know it?

I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.


I'm not interested in that nonsense, Ding. I strongly suspect you do not know ...and I will leave it at that.

I will say this, however: The dogma of the non-duality cult is very interesting.


Why disagree if you're unwilling to provide a reason for why you disagree?
Unlike Fresco, I am interested in what your position is. I'm a bit curious.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 10:32 am
@Ding an Sich,
OK, how do you explain electron decay in isotopes, and the (to date) universal agreement among educated and careful researchers that it takes place, and does so at predictable rates?
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 10:53 am
@Ding an Sich,
Excellent post, Ding.
Clearly "time" is implicit, as Fresco notes, in many concepts. That, of course, says nothing about its so-called objective or metaphysical status, only about its psychological reality for us.
But then there is also, as an expression of our philosophical drive, the hypothetical level of our theoretical experience that requires terms like "reality." To me Reality denotes all that mysteriously "is" whether or not I can grasp it in understandable or even useful terms--the point where I infamously agree with Frank.
And I most vigorously agree that mathematics and logic are human (-bound) activities. No humans, no math or logic.
Change (or as a Buddhist I would emphasize "impermanence") is both metaphysically and ontologically real--indeed, it is a central aspect of my very being.
Welcome to the cult.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 11:06 am
@Setanta,
Note that "universal agreement" can be simply a reflection of "common perceptual apparatus" within " a common reference frame".

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 11:15 am
@fresco,
I.e., you're alleging mass hallucination--that's pretty weak, even by your already low standards. Frank is right to describe this as your dogma.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 11:28 am
@Ding an Sich,
What I would say (and I found out subsequently that Heidegger agrees with me Wink ) is that "existence" is ephemeral and is evoked by ONLY by "thinking beings (Daseins) as as an aspect of their interactions. Indeed, I would say that what characterizes "thinking" is "thinging via language" and that includes the evocation of "self" and "objects".

But I've said all this before and it is of course the antithesis of a Ding an Sich. Smile
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 11:52 am
@Setanta,
No, the concept of "hallucination" is meaningless in a world of "universal agreement". I am saying all agreed reference frames (paradigms) are functional at the time but are always open to revision. The futile quest for "ultimate reality" (aka religion) is too often confused with the quest for "greater functionality". (Ref: Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

BTW Frank's babbling about "knowing" has been going on for years. Never have we seen an analysis of what he thinks "knowing" means, because he has a vested interest in his agnosticism which requires "knowing" to be nebulous. His projection of his vested interest as an accusation of the vested interests of non-dualists would make a text-book Freudian case ! The mere fact that physicists recognize the importance of the interaction of observer and observed (albeit at levels beyond the mundane) should dismiss the accusation of "cultism" with respect to such an idea once and for all.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2012 11:58 am
@fresco,
You're sidestepping the issue of instrumentation which detects electron decay in isotopes, in order to preach your favorite dogma. You are willing to allege a deep knowledge of science in order to substantiate your claims in some exchanges, but then abandon the imperatives of the scientific method when it suits your latest quoting of chapter and verse. Unless you are willing to allege that the registration of instruments and the reading of their indications is a form of mass hallucination, you'll be obliged to step outside your comfortable little world of word games. You're the one who is "languaging" here (god, you come up with some hilarious bullshit). But just because you love to play that game, and to appeal to authority in that matter is not evidence that neither reality nor time exist independently of your ivory tower.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/28/2020 at 07:18:57