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?

[ST88]

I don't know if you can say that one precedes the other. If we look at it in a certain way, we can say, the universe behaves like an L universe because L is true. However, it would be equally valid to say that because this is an L universe, L is true.

Which universe are you referring to when saying "L universe"? If you say the universe as it is now, then surely it is not the same "L universe" as the one immediately prior to inflation (or the universes that may indeed exist outside of our own).

The L universe is the one caused by L, to use your expression. A U universe would be caused by U. There is probably a semantic law of physics I am violating by defining things this way, but what the heck.

In addition, you've just actually added to the mystery, not reduced the current mystery. The first mystery is why is there a universe. We tried to answer that by suggesting the existence of L. What you in effect are doing is saying that there's now L and the world and they are both mysterious.

If the first cause is L, then the L universe is going to express L as true, is that what you're saying? If you want to differentiate L and the L universe, it is possible that even in an L universe, L is false. If L was true at any point in the L universe, then wouldn't it cause an L2 universe? You would have to assume that because the L universe is now precisely the L universe, that is, separate from the pre-universe condition, that the first cause L no longer applies. Otherwise, L would always instantiate a first cause.

In my universe, mystery is not a problem. Asking "why" begs the question of a reason that contains a value judgment. A better question is "how", since "why" is irrelevant. We are here. It is a much better question to ask "how" we got here. The "Why" question contains too much emotional baggage to be of scientific value.

If you ask Why L is true, you are essentially making a value judgment about L that is already separate from the universe in which L is true. Asking Why is this an L universe? is essentially the same question and goes to "instantiation" cosmology, where instruments that are accurate enough to let us know what actually happened at that moment have yet to be made.

That's fine, however this does not show that L can exist as a cause to the universe and God can still not exist. If you just want to tie L with the universe and leave it as one big mystery, you can do that, but you are following the same approach as QED by citing it as all very lucky that the universe wasn't nothing or wasn't 1D, etc..

I don't subscribe to the "lucky" hypothesis. My universe is strictly determinate -- though purely in an astrophysics sense. This particular universe has us to view it because that's how it happened.

Stuffing God into an equation where L is the cause doesn't fly. If you want to prove that God had anything to do with it, you're going to have to do better than to try and kick the legs out from under atheism. Essentially, what you're saying, in a very high-minded way, is that asking the question "Why do we exist?" can only be answered by "Because there is a God." But your question leads to your answer because of the way you ask it. I am comfortable with the idea that there is no "why". You may not be.

I don't think that by using the word "satisfy", you can pun it into making it true for the purposes of defining intelligence. The term "satisfy," as you are using it in the first instance is a mathematical term. 44 satisfies the equation X=4*11. It's just a term of description for a mechanistic operation. It is not a semantic device, but a syntactic one.

I disagree. Mathematics is not fully defined. If it were a definable enterprise, then computers could do math. That is, we could program a computer to follow the clear cut instructions on how to compute how an equation is satisfied, and let it continue to compute more and more complex equations. This doesn't happen, of course. The reason is that a computer is not intelligent. Perhaps a computer can be programmed to do math, but it would need algorithms that our conscious minds use to understand the meaning of equations and terms. However, if a computer had the ability to use such algorithms, it would be intelligent.

My Excel spreadsheet program has a "solve for" function.

But beside that, I believe you are thinking about it in the wrong way. You seem to be arguing that because we can use our language of mathematics and logic in a certain way, so must the universe. That is, the universe must go through the steps of saying "2 and 2 is four". But it doesn't work this way. This is how we use language to define the problem in a convenient way for us to comprehend what's going on. But what's actually going on has nothing to do with the way we use our language for it. Out there, where things actually happen, there are no equations, there are no numbers, there are no derivatives or integrals, there is only existence. The universe not only speaks a different language, it has a different concept of what language is. Thus, no semantic problem.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be presenting this issue as a problem that the universe had to solve at one point in order for it to exist (i.e, The condition is 4*11, now what can I put there to make it make sense?) If so, it's not necessary to view it this way. If not, well, you can ignore the paragraph also.

It's not something to "solve" in a temporal sense. It is something that has the problem and solution just "existing." The solution is God's action in the world. It takes a conscious mind, such as God's mind, to instantiate the world from the math (i.e., God's mind).

You are looking at it in the wrong way. If you think about effects having a "problem" and a "solution", then you will go down the path you are on. But out there, where the effects are happening, there are no real "problems" and "solutions", even if you view them as simultaneous. These are language constructs that are convenient for us to figure out what's going on. The effects exist. Period. If we want to measure them or dream up different scenarios, then we turn to the language of mathematics. If we want to describe the motions of the spheres, we use the language of mathematics. But the spheres themselves do not require this language to follow their paths. That's just how astrophysics works.

[ST88]

I still can't go with you saying that logic requires intelligence. Maybe I lack the required background in information theory or something? Do you have a good link for this?

I think the best way to approach this topic is by using Tarski's conception of satisfaction:

“...the word ‘true’ ...expresses a property of ...of sentences. However, it is easily seen that all the formulations which were given earlier and aimed to explain the meaning of this word ...referred not only to sentences themselves, but also to objects ‘talked about’ by these sentences, or possibly to ‘states of affairs’ described by them. And, moreover, it turns out that the simplest and the most natural way of obtaining an exact definition of truth is one which involves the use of other semantic notions, e.g. the notion of satisfaction. It is for these reasons that we count the concept of truth which is discussed here among the concepts of semantics, and the problem of defining truth proves to be closely related to the more general problem of setting up the foundations of theoretical semantics.”

If the universe exists because L is true, then L must express a semantic property, not just syntactic property. In other words, Tarski's approach should be extended to a much more primitive cosmology in attempt to answer the most basic of all questions, why is there something versus nothing. This approach requires language as among the most primitive concepts (i.e., more primitive than spacetime or matter), and language requires the existence of Mind. In other words, God exists.

Now I think I see where you're coming from. You assume that with an event L, there is a statement about that event. Ah, but here is where you make your mistake. There need be no statement.

Language, as is defined by we speaking beings, allows us to ask questions and make statements that make no sense or that lead to other statements and questions that make no sense. That's a property of language. Language, apart from being a communication device also serves to be a parsable system of labels & referents. It's up to us to put them together to make sense. But referents exist independent of language. Yea, even the universe's language I spoke of earlier is not a real language, but a metaphor for what's actually happening.

If you assume that for every act there is an assertion of that act, then you would probably use your definition of semantics. But not so. Acts happen and there is no independent information to describe that act that exists (beyond what we give to it) that is not part of the act.

[harvey1]

I thought it was simplicity itself. It also contradicts nothing that is known in science. It also makes sense and if you find any faults in the reasoning I would be grateful if you would explain my error.

If you would like my analysis, then my suggestion is that you break it down into a logical argument (step by step approach) listing your premises, drawing your deductions, and making your conclusion. Based on that, I can add whatever other premises I think you have missed, etc., and that way, you'll see why I think your concept is too complex to be expected for the early universe. But, isn't your conception an atheist conception? I thought you were a theist?

ok. Since language is the means by which information is passed from "speaker" to "listener", how or why would language exist if there was no separation which would require a language to exist.
If all that existed was the mind of God and God is Unity then language would be redundant if his Unity was omnipresent and perfect.

Language serves one other function in addition to communication with another creature. Language, e.g., DNA code, serves as a means to organize a structure for survival. It's my contention that there is an elaborate structure called the Universe because it is needed to "survive" (i.e., not be driven to non-existence by paradox). As an aside, the reason why God used evolution in the world is that God is being consistent all the way from the beginning where logical structures were formed by evolutionary means.

If Information is not equally present in all parts of the mind and the mind requires a language to pass this information from one part to the other this would suggest that God is mutable and asymmetrical, having fluctuations in what is present here or there at any given time.

I'm not sure what you mean by "if information is not equally present." The logico-mathematical nature of God's mind is equally present not in terms of a geometry (e.g., our brains), but rather in terms of theorems that are true. So, where is pi in God's mind? Answer: it is everywhere and nowhere. Geometry is not relevant when asking where God stores this information. It is a matter of what is true and how is that truth known to be true.

Without time how would the language allow passage of information from areas of high density to low density? If language was present then if it is not needed by God to communicate with himself it must be needed to communicate with a separate entity or entities which leads to language not really predating existence.

It's a matter of looking at the logico-mathematical mind as a series of kernels (a good analogy is the human brain). You have the brain stem kernel which has a different layer of fundamentality about it which the higher kernels need in order to function. So, likewise, you have basic theorems which are needed in higher kernels. There is no need to transmit such information since the kernel of God's mind that is responsible for us is immediately accessible due to the nature of truth being instantaneous.

[Cathar1950]

Curious,
What is the cost and how will it be shipped?
does it have directions or a manual?
thanks.

[Cathar1950]

ST88 wrote:

Correction here, the language of mathematics and logic are human constructs. Mathematics itself is not a human construct, but its expressions can used as constructs to measure and describe objects and effects. We can say, for example, that the diameter of the earth is 8,000 miles, then do all sorts of calculations on that to find other measurements. But even though the idea of a "mile" is a human construct, the actual length, the referent, that the phrase "8,000 miles" points to is the same as the objective diameter of the earth. We can test this by using a different measuring system, kilometers, and see if we get the same result by comparing km to mi.

That makes sense to me. There is a reality of sorts but it seems to be interpreted as well as felt and I am part of it what ever it is. It would seem that the objective 8,000 miles is an agreed definition. As near as I can see even the idea of a diameter is a construct. There is something rather then nothing but but that something could only be an aproximentation. limited by our tools for measurement including our brains. An the universe is ever changing including what we are measuring. Another thought I once had was about the red shift and the universe expanding and everything moving away from everything except the stuff colliding. maybe every thing is shrinking and it just looks like it is expanding. But I get anxiety attacts when I think of black holes.

[harvey1]

The L universe is the one caused by L, to use your expression. A U universe would be caused by U.

What's the difference between L and U, and L universe and U universe?

If the first cause is L, then the L universe is going to express L as true, is that what you're saying?

Sort of. L universe is the demonstrative proof of L. L is the theorem, L universe is the proof of that theorem.

If you want to differentiate L and the L universe, it is possible that even in an L universe, L is false. If L was true at any point in the L universe, then wouldn't it cause an L2 universe? You would have to assume that because the L universe is now precisely the L universe, that is, separate from the pre-universe condition, that the first cause L no longer applies. Otherwise, L would always instantiate a first cause.

L isn't in time, therefore there is no "always" as in it keeps doing something. I view it more like this kind of process:

1. The World is causal
2. Causality requires axioms
3. Axioms require theorems
4. Theorems and axioms are language
5. Language requires comprehension and Mind
6. Theorems become part of the Mind
7. Mind proves the theorems
8. Mind "saves" the theorems that are proved to be true and discards to "hell" those that aren't true (they become as though they never were)
9. The saved theorems become L
10. Using L the Mind instantiates universes
11. After the universes end and the Mind judges the universes for their worthiness to be included in L
12. If universe is included in L, then it is an eternal theorem in L; if not consistent, then discarded

All of the above is instantaneous. There is a logical priority on what occurs in terms of priority, but there is no time. Time is just another structure like x, y, z dimensions. Our (3+1) universe is a geometry given its own geometrical representation.

In my universe, mystery is not a problem. Asking "why" begs the question of a reason that contains a value judgment. A better question is "how", since "why" is irrelevant. We are here. It is a much better question to ask "how" we got here. The "Why" question contains too much emotional baggage to be of scientific value.

Well, is that because if you ask why the answer comes back to contradict reason? If so, then maybe you should ask why since perhaps the ideology is wrong. My experience is that those who don't find a satisfactory answer to why are usually proposing wrong views.

I don't subscribe to the "lucky" hypothesis. My universe is strictly determinate -- though purely in an astrophysics sense. This particular universe has us to view it because that's how it happened.

Okay, it's a brute fact world that has tremendous complexity that overpowers reason. But, that strikes me as an ideology based on faith. If someone such as myself were to question your ideology, the best answer you can give me is that I should take it on faith that this is how things happened. But, as Spetey pointed out, a belief based on faith could be a dangerous view.

Stuffing God into an equation where L is the cause doesn't fly. If you want to prove that God had anything to do with it, you're going to have to do better than to try and kick the legs out from under atheism. Essentially, what you're saying, in a very high-minded way, is that asking the question "Why do we exist?" can only be answered by "Because there is a God." But your question leads to your answer because of the way you ask it. I am comfortable with the idea that there is no "why". You may not be.

No! I am saying that God exists because of causality (see above). I don't place God above causality (although some mystics might).

You seem to be arguing that because we can use our language of mathematics and logic in a certain way, so must the universe. That is, the universe must go through the steps of saying "2 and 2 is four". But it doesn't work this way. This is how we use language to define the problem in a convenient way for us to comprehend what's going on. But what's actually going on has nothing to do with the way we use our language for it. Out there, where things actually happen, there are no equations, there are no numbers, there are no derivatives or integrals, there is only existence. The universe not only speaks a different language, it has a different concept of what language is. Thus, no semantic problem.

All an equation is, is a relationship. It tells us how the universe is restricted in behaving. It is this restrictive behavior that exists. However, the equation does more than just tell us a restrictive relationship exists, it tells us why that relationship is restrictive. That's the math. Just from very simple axioms, axioms that have a lot to do with causality (e.g., identity), we can understand why it is the universe is restricted in certain relationships. The "why's" behind these restrictive relationships are due to the consistency that nature follows. This consistency, I believe, favors a semantic consistency interpretation since a material consistency interpretation has deep problems with it. For example, quantum teleportation would favor a semantic interpretation since the universe is responding to the consistency of the laws themselves versus a local field interaction.

You are looking at it in the wrong way. If you think about effects having a "problem" and a "solution", then you will go down the path you are on. But out there, where the effects are happening, there are no real "problems" and "solutions", even if you view them as simultaneous. These are language constructs that are convenient for us to figure out what's going on. The effects exist. Period. If we want to measure them or dream up different scenarios, then we turn to the language of mathematics. If we want to describe the motions of the spheres, we use the language of mathematics. But the spheres themselves do not require this language to follow their paths. That's just how astrophysics works.

The restrictive relations exist, and those restrictive relations hold even for systems that are not locally connected (e.g., quantum teleportation). It is therefore the relations themselves which are the explanation of the phenomena and not the effect just happening. If it were an effect just happening, then we would not expect to see the restrictive relations hold where two effects are observed (e.g., Bob and Alice conducting experiments a light year apart). There would be no relationship between Bob's particle and Alice's particle since they are not in local contact. You cannot strike it up to just behavior being what it is since we know why those two particles are in causal connection, these are the laws of quantum mechanics being enforced in the universe. If it were not that way, then our predictiveness of these kind of experiments would not be explainable.

[harvey1]

Now I think I see where you're coming from. You assume that with an event L, there is a statement about that event. Ah, but here is where you make your mistake. There need be no statement. Language, as is defined by we speaking beings, allows us to ask questions and make statements that make no sense or that lead to other statements and questions that make no sense. That's a property of language. Language, apart from being a communication device also serves to be a parsable system of labels & referents. It's up to us to put them together to make sense. But referents exist independent of language. Yea, even the universe's language I spoke of earlier is not a real language, but a metaphor for what's actually happening.

I don't think what you are saying here is consistent with the way in which theoretical science is being done. To say that the symmetries of nature do not exist, I think is to give too much credit to the physicists who used very simple symmetries to construct very exact and complex predictions. Take, for example, the Eightfold Way. The Eightfold Way is a very beautiful and concise description (derived from mathematical principles) that was able to predict and show why nature preferred certain particles. If there were no statement behind the event, then we would not see this. Nature would be much more at liberty to do whatever the hell it wanted, and the statements which we used to describe that behavior would be guesswork but so inapproximate that everyone would know that it is just a model. In other words, theoretical physics would be closer to 20th century psychology than it would be to modern mathematics.

If you assume that for every act there is an assertion of that act, then you would probably use your definition of semantics. But not so. Acts happen and there is no independent information to describe that act that exists (beyond what we give to it) that is not part of the act.

That would be randomness, I think. Randomness is the case when no algorithm exists that can describe physical behavior with less bits than just demonstrating the behavior itself. However, we know this is not the case. We have algorithms (called the laws of physics) which can describe the complex world with pretty good predictiveness. If those algorithms don't exist (i.e., they are the imagination of physicists who have invented "useful fictions"), then it is very bizarre that we can predict effects with such accuracy. The only conceivable explanation, I think, is that nature behaves according to those algorithms, and it does so even when the physical systems are not in local contact (e.g., quantum entanglement).

[Cathar1950]

The causal chain using God as the beginning is the same as using the universe as its own beginning your still left with How. There is no reason that the universe isn't self caused or God. I like Panentheism personally but that doesn't make it true or believable. The problem I see is some have a preconceived view of God usually Bible inspired or indoctrinated that is being projected. I belive in the interconectiveness of all things and a sympathetic relationship. Math and science has helped me get to that but the Biblicalist view doesn't offer me a coherent model. Some of it does but some of a lot of other things do also like the smiles of my children. Good enough for me anyway. Now when I hear some one say that the universe has an intelligent design I can see why I have intelligence, reason, and experience that sets me up to think that way. I don't have a choice it is the way I was made, created, or evolved. But even if we could prove that there is an intelligence behind or in it all, would not prove the Bible right about all they give it credit for or that any one interpretation is valid. Which is what they are trying to prove. Why if God had so much intelligence behind his design that God didn't make a better book, more information, correct info, more useful, or clear and non contradictory.
When someones says that God created the world and it must be therefor the Bible is right and I have to belive in a bunch of stuff to get saved seems to be a leap into the irrational. No connections is made just declared. One of My favorite bible verses is "come let us reason together though your sins be as scarlet they shall be made white as snow" The reason is the big one. So what do I make of a human sacrific that God requires to be saved? I think God doesn't need a sacrific but then again I don't belive in the fall or man or original sin. But others belive in Jesus(with many different views) and need the bible for their evidence so the bible has to be right and therefor everything it says.
It becomes a logical mess. Black holes seem less complicated and you know what they do to me. Anxiety! But I love them. But when It comes to Jesus I see another agenda at work because they don't just want you to belive in the Bible and Jesus and God but want you to act a certain way usually in some controlling fashion. They got to be right so everyone else is wrong and is in need of change or death depending on the power they hold. What about string theory? Or aliens?

[Curious]

If you would like my analysis, then my suggestion is that you break it down into a logical argument (step by step approach) listing your premises, drawing your deductions, and making your conclusion. Based on that, I can add whatever other premises I think you have missed, etc., and that way, you'll see why I think your concept is too complex to be expected for the early universe.

I believe that in our previous discussion on the subject we followed this method. On several occasions you did point out certain flaws you believed were inherent to the theory which I then explained.

But, isn't your conception an atheist conception? I thought you were a theist?

I am a theist and as this theory seeks to describe purely physical existence I don't see how it could be either atheist or theist. Unless of course you are to limit God to the nature ascribed by others. I would describe the concept as a reasoning concept, where the conclusion is dependent upon the reasoning rather than either of the other two which seem to draw their reasoning from their pre-drawn conclusions.

Language serves one other function in addition to communication with another creature. Language, e.g., DNA code, serves as a means to organize a structure for survival.

But this language again requires a structure to act upon.

I'm not sure what you mean by "if information is not equally present." The logico-mathematical nature of God's mind is equally present not in terms of a geometry (e.g., our brains), but rather in terms of theorems that are true. So, where is pi in God's mind? Answer: it is everywhere and nowhere. Geometry is not relevant when asking where God stores this information. It is a matter of what is true and how is that truth known to be true.

Again you use an example that requires structure. Pi is the ratio between the circumference of a circle and it's diameter. Without the structure of a circle, or the separation of numbers, Pi is meaningless and to believe that pi is somehow precedent to either circle or numbers requires more reasoning than you have given.

It's a matter of looking at the logico-mathematical mind as a series of kernels (a good analogy is the human brain). You have the brain stem kernel which has a different layer of fundamentality about it which the higher kernels need in order to function. So, likewise, you have basic theorems which are needed in higher kernels..

Again to use the term kernel implies structure.
Wouldn't this kernel theory contradict the description of the mind in the above quote?

There is no need to transmit such information since the kernel of God's mind that is responsible for us is immediately accessible due to the nature of truth being instantaneous.

Responsible for something that does not exist?(we are talking pre-universe here).
I could win the lottery and I would be a winner immediately but I wouldn't know about it until I checked the numbers. Just because something is true does not mean that it could be acted upon without first knowing it is true.

[harvey1]

I believe that in our previous discussion on the subject we followed this method. On several occasions you did point out certain flaws you believed were inherent to the theory which I then explained.

It wasn't presented to me in this kind of format, so honestly, it's really hard for me to judge the merits of your conclusion without knowing your premises and remaining argument.

But this language again requires a structure to act upon.

I guess I'm not following you what your objection is. The collective theorems of L are a structure. For example, mathematics is a collective structure. God decides what if a theorem is true, and this decision is what puts a new structure in L.

Again you use an example that requires structure. Pi is the ratio between the circumference of a circle and it's diameter. Without the structure of a circle, or the separation of numbers, Pi is meaningless and to believe that pi is somehow precedent to either circle or numbers requires more reasoning than you have given.

In my platonic view, a circle is a geometric shape contained in the structure L.

Again to use the term kernel implies structure.
Wouldn't this kernel theory contradict the description of the mind in the above quote?

I don't see how.

There is no need to transmit such information since the kernel of God's mind that is responsible for us is immediately accessible due to the nature of truth being instantaneous.

Responsible for something that does not exist?(we are talking pre-universe here). I could win the lottery and I would be a winner immediately but I wouldn't know about it until I checked the numbers. Just because something is true does not mean that it could be acted upon without first knowing it is true.

There is no temporal sequence, there is a logical sequence. The "acted upon" is instantaneous depending on the results.