Can there be such a thing as nothing?

[QED]

If we try to clear our minds and use them to conceive of nothingness it almost hurts. It's as if it's an impossible feat for the imagination. Logic and language fully support this notion. How can there be such a thing as nothing? Is this logical contradiction just a play on words or could it be the reason why everything exists?

[QED]

Keep in mind, though, you said that pantheism was okay until the word "G-O-D" was spelled out, then you backed off. That's why I don't think this issue is a red herring. If it were, then why back off with something you naturally have no problem with?

I think you'll find that the answer to this lies in the micro-god emerging from this debate.

Nowhere in your scheme of things do we see the patterns of growth (that are the hallmark of every other aspect of the universe) leading us up to this entity.

That's not true. I've said all along that the beginning state is a logico-causal principle which is the primary basis for even God's existence.

OK, but then you say:

I don't think God is a person floating on some cloud somewhere. God is the order in the universe, and that order mostly exemplifies itself as mathematical order. Now, if there is no mathematical order (only random order), then how in the heck could you have a phase transition or any other law of physics which is a mathematical outcome? Please see it from my side. What you are suggesting is non-sensical. I can't imagine a non-mathematical world with no order whatsoever doing anything consistent.

This omnipresent god (which is the laws of mathematics) has you up singing his praises along with the rest of the evangelical choir. But you've said nothing about his growth other than that logico-causal principles are the basis for his existence. So I have a very big problem of how it all gets personal. Why do we get a "man with a plan" emerging from logico-causal principles rather than, say, a nascent multiverse in the making? You see, I'm thinking about Jesus and why he is supposed to have paid us a visit. This story, if it is to be believed, tells us a great deal about the persona of mathematics with which I have a hard time joining up the dots.

So, without any precedent to go by, the universe should be expected to be the product of growth from exceptional simplicity

Exactly! But, notice, you backed away from simplicity to start things off in a beginning state. In fact you were eager to back away from simplicity by going to a multiverse that has no explanation other than we can't possibly understand how those things were possible. It is complete faith on your part and I'm just slapping my head trying to grasp why it is that you resist the most obvious solution with so much vigor.

The multiverse represents simplicity in the sense that forcing air and soapy water from a tube can create a huge amount of foam. God represents simplicity by, er, umm...

Huh? I am not the one with the axiom "and there was a multiverse so complex with a functionality toward complexity that we can't begin to understand or model with our most brilliant minds." That's your baby.

I'll stand by my baby. A functionality towards complexity is evocative of evolution and growth. I have no problems defending that.

I don't know why you do not see your prejudice here. You simply won't admit that mathematical order is a good solution in terms of guiding and governing the universe (i.e., pantheism), along with that mathematical order being infinitely complex since the theorems just keep getting more and more intelligent in terms of their guidance over the universe. What is so hard about that? It is straightforward deductions. In fact, perhaps future science will begin to move at a much faster clip and will start uncovering many of these theorems. It will make the path integral look like counting to three.

I like the picture you paint here, but prejudice to me is starting with a story about a man who could walk on water and working it all the way back to a deliberate plan for everything. We had a semantic disagreement that life has a goal brought about from it's selection criteria. We seem to have exactly the same semantic disagreement here.

[harvey1]

This omnipresent god (which is the laws of mathematics) has you up singing his praises along with the rest of the evangelical choir. But you've said nothing about his growth other than that logico-causal principles are the basis for his existence. So I have a very big problem of how it all gets personal. Why do we get a "man with a plan" emerging from logico-causal principles rather than, say, a nascent multiverse in the making?

Like I said, the beginning of this language (call it L) is logical and mathematical theorems in a number of branches. This leads to more theorems ad infinitum. However, it does not end there. There are branches like information theory and decision theory which also have their theorems which introduce concepts which also need defining. These concepts quickly become philosophical in their nature, and suddenly logic is being used to consider philosophical issues. Once the subject of counterfactuals are considered things really start get rolling. Now you have the subject of worlds being used to weigh philosophical issues, hence sooner or later our world is one up for "discussion." Wham bam thank you ma'am and here we are talking about all this right now.

The multiverse represents simplicity in the sense that forcing air and soapy water from a tube can create a huge amount of foam. God represents simplicity by, er, umm...

If you're gonna require a multiverse than why not just introduce a universe stocked with memories that existed only 5 minutes ago? The multiverse and a 5 minute universe are equally as probable in my book.

I'll stand by my baby. A functionality towards complexity is evocative of evolution and growth. I have no problems defending that.

And, my model is much more leaning toward simplicity to complexity. It shows how a logico-causal principle can lead to theorems, and how theorems can eventually lead to theorems dealing with decisions on deciding on a myriad of counterfactual worlds. My model does evolve from simple principles and it gives good reason why evolutionary processes are important since they conform to the deductive and inductive logical structures that "exist."

You're atheist model is completely ad hoc. It supposes a complexity at the beginning much more sophisticated than the universe near the big bang, and what's worse, it also must depend on a logical order just like I described to really make any sense of it. It is simply not needed in a reasonable explanation for the universe.

[QED]

This omnipresent god (which is the laws of mathematics) has you up singing his praises along with the rest of the evangelical choir. But you've said nothing about his growth other than that logico-causal principles are the basis for his existence. So I have a very big problem of how it all gets personal. Why do we get a "man with a plan" emerging from logico-causal principles rather than, say, a nascent multiverse in the making?

Like I said, the beginning of this language (call it L) is logical and mathematical theorems in a number of branches. This leads to more theorems ad infinitum. However, it does not end there. There are branches like information theory and decision theory which also have their theorems which introduce concepts which also need defining. These concepts quickly become philosophical in their nature, and suddenly logic is being used to consider philosophical issues. Once the subject of counterfactuals are considered things really start get rolling. Now you have the subject of worlds being used to weigh philosophical issues, hence sooner or later our world is one up for "discussion." Wham bam thank you ma'am and here we are talking about all this right now.

Well it's during this phase of "Wham bam thank you ma'am" that we seriously diverge. I had hoped to get you to focus on the semantic disagreement we were having over life apparently having a goal arising from it's selection criteria. You don't seem to like the idea of this, and you claim that there is intent in the universe, but you say it's not the same sort of intent that a rock falling down a hill has.

So while we can both identify goals and intent in the universe we also know that each comes in two flavours. Your preference is to go for cherry to suit your sweet tooth. I'm more of a savoury type.

You're atheist model is completely ad hoc. It supposes a complexity at the beginning much more sophisticated than the universe near the big bang, and what's worse, it also must depend on a logical order just like I described to really make any sense of it. It is simply not needed in a reasonable explanation for the universe.

Where do you get this higher degree of complexity at the beginning from? The ability of four chemical bases to evolve into brain-bearing creatures that can chew gum and pat their heads at the same time sounds to me like just the sort of process that could take a little logic and create an infinite number of theorems that result in a multiverse. Remember, we have a choice of flavours.

[harvey1]

Well it's during this phase of "Wham bam thank you ma'am" that we seriously diverge. I had hoped to get you to focus on the semantic disagreement we were having over life apparently having a goal arising from it's selection criteria.

I don't see how it's feasible for life as a whole to have intent. Can you describe to me how a paramecium is concerned about the constraints facing us with North Korea?

You don't seem to like the idea of this, and you claim that there is intent in the universe, but you say it's not the same sort of intent that a rock falling down a hill has.

That's right. The intent is for the universe, but the Universe (i.e., the whole of reality) is what has this intent. The sender is the Universe itself.

So while we can both identify goals and intent in the universe we also know that each comes in two flavours. Your preference is to go for cherry to suit your sweet tooth. I'm more of a savoury type.

I don't think you've shown how the universe can have intent. Intent is from a sender, and you haven't shown me what acts as the sender on behalf of the universe.

Where do you get this higher degree of complexity at the beginning from?

Like I said, L is based on a logico-causal principle, and each statement in L is linked to the axioms of this logico-causal basis. The complexification is a deductive result that just exists for the same reason that 2+2=4. It is a deductive conclusion based on a set of axioms that allow L to be infinitely complex.

The ability of four chemical bases to evolve into brain-bearing creatures that can chew gum and pat their heads at the same time sounds to me like just the sort of process that could take a little logic and create an infinite number of theorems that result in a multiverse. Remember, we have a choice of flavours.

If you think an infinite number of theorems exist that can create a multiverse, then this would put you squarely in the theist camp.

[QED]

Well it's during this phase of "Wham bam thank you ma'am" that we seriously diverge. I had hoped to get you to focus on the semantic disagreement we were having over life apparently having a goal arising from it's selection criteria.

I don't see how it's feasible for life as a whole to have intent. Can you describe to me how a paramecium is concerned about the constraints facing us with North Korea?

I can think of a number of amusing retorts to this silly question, but I'll spare you as I am here to be serious.

My answer to the remainder of your points is something I have just been writing in the God and the meaningful life thread We're getting a bit out of whack with these two discussions. I'll let you respond in either thread:

Maybe you didn't get my drift. I was trying to make the point that most people see consciousness as something very, very, special such that even possessing a tiny bit implies all sorts of mystical, magical, wonders taking place. I see it totally the other way around -- that a little bit of consciousness is what a thermostat possesses and it's no more wonderful than that. Scaling this up by brain-sized proportions of complexity makes it no more wonderful when viewed in this way. So that should answer how I can happily attribute an inkling of consciousness to the universe.

So there's no magic involved in intent, meaning or consciousness for me. But I'm on the look-out for particular degrees supported by sufficiently complex structures in order to account for large-scale planning involved in things like, say, a sea-squirt looking for his ideal rock.

The ability of four chemical bases to evolve into brain-bearing creatures that can chew gum and pat their heads at the same time sounds to me like just the sort of process that could take a little logic and create an infinite number of theorems that result in a multiverse. Remember, we have a choice of flavours.

If you think an infinite number of theorems exist that can create a multiverse, then this would put you squarely in the theist camp.

That's wonderful
Or is it? You see, you've defined such things as wonderful and magical but there's no absolute need to view things thus. I've said before that the universe is full of hot-air, all puffed-up -- maybe like one of those wild-west hotels with the fancy facade disguising an old shack behind the grand wooden frontage. It only looks big and heavy because we imagine having to move it or paint it etc...

[harvey1]

If you think an infinite number of theorems exist that can create a multiverse, then this would put you squarely in the theist camp.

you've defined such things as wonderful and magical but there's no absolute need to view things thus. I've said before that the universe is full of hot-air, all puffed-up -- maybe like one of those wild-west hotels with the fancy facade disguising an old shack behind the grand wooden frontage. It only looks big and heavy because we imagine having to move it or paint it etc...

I'm not sure what your response has to do with my response. Have you taken a step toward theism, and if not (almost certainly not...), then please tell me why your view is simpler than one which is based on a logico-causal principle. It seems the universe being created 5 minutes ago stocked with memories is just as simple of a solution as the multiverse that exists for no cause. Why propose a multiverse when you can just say that we were all born with memories within the last 5 minutes?

[WHY?]

I don't want to take the time to read all 16 pages of this thread, but based on the last few posts I'd say you guys have trapped yourselves in a stupid argument. The whole concept on mutli-verses and 5-min-ago universes have no solid logical support. I could use your arguments to claim that a multi-verse came into being when I was was born. In other words, I could use your own arguments to attack your assertions (I think). So stop acting childish and admit that you both are wrong (or right).

[Cathar1950]

I was thinking about the collapse of the probability wave. Here sub atomic
particles have possibility. By the time it gets to our level it seems pretty much determined. We seem to be just remembering and I wonder how much choice we really have. Do we just have possibilities? we remember the path and think we are choosing. Maybe only subatomic particles have choices and that is determined by all observation of others.
I can't really think of nothing I can thing of lack or missing but to be nothing seems like a contradiction given exsistence is an attribute, or quality.
Also I was wondering when I read about the chances of the universe being the way it was was some astonomical number like 10 to the 148 power or something like that.
It seems that if it exsists the probability is one. It is. Statistics and probability are always historical and prediction is always with in historical data.
Maybe God(for lack of a better word) is just the sum of all particles making choices and their consequences.

[QED]

So stop acting childish and admit that you both are wrong (or right).

I reserve the right to act childish. It often provides a useful perspective on such big questions as this. The universe appears to be fine-tuned. We know however that any other tuning would not support us as we are here and now so we have only two possibilities

1) It was set up carefully, on purpose, by a supernatural entity who wished to create a universe in which we would eventually be able to arise.
2) It was the product of a natural process capable of producing a wide range of universes one of which we currently enjoy.

Is there any other option?

[Curious]

So stop acting childish and admit that you both are wrong (or right).

I reserve the right to act childish. It often provides a useful perspective on such big questions as this. The universe appears to be fine-tuned. We know however that any other tuning would not support us as we are here and now so we have only two possibilities

1) It was set up carefully, on purpose, by a supernatural entity who wished to create a universe in which we would eventually be able to arise.
2) It was the product of a natural process capable of producing a wide range of universes one of which we currently enjoy.

Is there any other option?

Yes, perhaps it was set up carefully, on purpose, by a supernatural entity who wished to create a universe in which we are a necessary or unforseen side effect.