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?

[harvey1]

What I am saying is that YOU must give reasoning not just opinion supporting your argument. What I describe above is an example of the type of argument you make. God does this so this happens is not a valid argument. You give no reasoning to support your statement. This is the philosophy forum not the messiah forum. You cannot expect other people to back up their arguments if you will not do it yourself.

The argument I make is not that God does this so that this happens. My argument is that for logic to exist, truth must exist, agreed? For truth to exist there must be a criteria of truth, right? If the criteria is not satisfied, there can be no truth hence no logic, right? Satisfaction means that the statement of truth has met all of its conditions of truthfulness, and this requires a comprehension of what the statement means. Otherwise, how can a statement be satisfied for its truthfulness? If it cannot be, and I don't see how since a statement is an element of language which requires a mind, therefore saying immutable logic exists is the same as saying that a immutable mind exists as integral to the structure of reality. If you contend that this argument is not correct, then quote the passage that you find problemsome.

How is this anything other than conjecture?

It's conjecture about what must be the case based on making a conjecture such as "logic exists." It naturally follows from such a statement that mind exists, and the reason the mind exists is to validate the theorems that must also exist. I can follow this line of conjecture since it follows naturally from a premise that seems to be the case (i.e., that the universe is mathematical because it follows from a mathematical brute reality).

But surely it is the touch of the unicorns horn that makes truth and the lie is the print left by it's hoof. If you are willing to back up anything you say with factual evidence or at least the semblance of reason I would be happy to listen.

You have to look at my argument and show me which premise or deduction that you disagree with. If you're just going to write off something by alluding to myth, then there's nothing for us to discuss.

[ST88]

I think proofs do exist. In fact, instantiating structures to get a proof is a clear motivation for a God to make a world. If proofs did not exist, then I don't see how the logico-mathematical structures can exist. That is, a structure would only exist if it were true, but truth is tied to its proof, so if the proof didn't exist then there is no tie-in between the structure and its veracity, so why would it exist?

The proof allows us to describe the situation to our liking. The actual process does not require a proof. For a structure or a process to exist does not require an attribute called "true". After all, if the attribute were a toggle switch, the "false" position wouldn't make any sense. Naturally, everything that exists exists. There is no "proof" necessary.

I view it more like this kind of process... Causality requires axioms

Causality does not require axioms. Axioms describe causality. Otherwise, you would have to say that a causality is an axiom. And even then, the axiom is still independent of the language that describes it.

Axioms describe causality is the same thing as saying that causality requires axioms.

Er, no. Causality occurs whether we place axioms on them or not. Perhaps this is merely a misunderstanding of what the word "axiom" means. In either case, this is probably a minor issue.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. For example, if I said that a human being require human bodies to live, it would be the same thing as saying that human bodies describe what being a human being is.

I disagree. A human body does no such thing. There is no implication by the human body that it is a human body -- it is exclusively inference on our part that human body indicates a human being. It is an entirely sensate experience, which is why this inference can be manipulated via theater and politics.

I think "why" is a very important scientific question.

For example: Why do leopards have spots? The question itself implies a value judgment about having spots. You must first discover a system through which the leopard is able to be spotted -- a "how" question. In other words, the "how" is a more important and valid question than the "why".

Why do leopards have spots is a scientific question.

"How" is a more important question. Identifying processes is a core scientific endeavor. Identifying reason and purpose is a philosophical endeavor.

If you should ask me the question why you should believe what I do, I don't have an answer for you. I honestly can't see why the God hypothesis fits the data better.

That might be because you don't ask why is the universe as structured as it is. If you don't ask that question, then there's little reason to believe in God since God is the only satisfactory answer to the big why questions.

Thank you for proving my point.

This doesn't make sense to me. How would responding to the consistency of laws favor a semantic interpretation? The laws themselves are not semantic, and there is no perceivable difference between an action based on a law and an effect.

The laws are semantic based since they are constructed from the language of mathematics. However, they are not just semantic concepts since they dictate how reality works (e.g., why the Universe cannot exist without there being spacetime(s)). The semantic relationships, as I mentioned, stem from the nature of Universe being a causal world, and this explains why there are axioms which bring forth the kind of Universe which has the logico-mathematical structure that it happens to have... Our minds have intuitive access to L due to the eons of evolution where our evolving brains learned how L works (the "ins" and "outs" of L).

Again, existence is not an attribute. This is a causal unvierse, fine. But only in the fact that something caused it to come into existence. Even you stated that the condition L (required for the universe to exist) was a one-time operation. Therefore, the cause is gone. The universe exists, and we can't cry over spilled milk. Here we are.

The idea that existence describes existence doesn't make any sense. Does the fact that we can dream up space-time incidents that would be impossible in our universe imply that there must be an intelligence that parses universal laws? No. You're assigning arbitrary meaning to an event that need not have any. We can state that L was true at one point in time. Fine. You can even state that within the effect of L, only those events which are allowed by L can ever exist. But it is a great leap to state that every single event must be tested/verified by an intelligence to see if it corresponds with L before it can be carried out. Within a pachinko machine, only those events that could ever occur inside the machine will ever occur. Strict mechanics. Now, if we assume that L ever existed at all, then we could describe the universe as a giant pachinko machine simply in terms of effects. That we can describe the nature of L as being causal does not mean that we must describe the effects of this cause as being causal themselves.

Nice try, but not quite good enough. The properties of A (Alice's particle) can be teleported to Bob at a distant location without communicating the properties of A to Bob. All that must be communicated is the result of her Bell measurement. See this article.

I really don't see how my example is any different. The baseballs do not interact in any way. You prepare the entangled atoms in the same way and you have to assume they are identical to start with in order for the thought experiment to work. What's the difference?

But beyond that, where's the fire? I'm not a physicist, so take this any way you will: I am not convinced that the effect is what you (or the incredulous experimenters) say it is. But be that as it may, let's assume you may be correct in assuming that this effect exists. My only response would be: And?

Let's assume for the moment that the Bell experiments are fine and dandy -- the loopholes are explained, the experimental errors are insignificant, the preparations of the atoms/substrate do not affect the outcome, etc. etc. We still don't know the processes behind this effect. Why is it that you assume an intelligence is required to explain this effect?

(incidentally: The Bob, Bob, Charlie, Alice problem (absent the weirdness of QM) strikes me as being expressed as follows: A=B1, B2=C. If B1=B2, does A=C?)

[QED]

I'd like to point out that the sort of nonlocality demonstrated by entangled states only serves to underline the incompleteness of quantum field theory. For example (and straight off the top of my head!), it might be that from within the geometry of Kaluza-Klein Space-time there exists a common intersection between every point in the three large spatial dimensions. Photons travelling at the speed of light see their journey from one side of the universe to the other as taking no time at all and for them every coordinate would look the same. I only toss this in because there's always a danger that we read something we shouldn't into a partial understanding of a given phenomenon.

[harvey1]

The proof allows us to describe the situation to our liking. The actual process does not require a proof. For a structure or a process to exist does not require an attribute called "true". After all, if the attribute were a toggle switch, the "false" position wouldn't make any sense. Naturally, everything that exists exists. There is no "proof" necessary.

Of course I'm talking about if logic predates a material world. If all there is is a material world, then there are no laws, no symmetries, no truths, just material meanderings. However, that just brings us back to the question on why are we so lucky that material meanderings were so sophisticated that it could in principle produce advanced structures and events (e.g., inflating universes).

if I said that a human being require human bodies to live, it would be the same thing as saying that human bodies describe what being a human being is.

I disagree. A human body does no such thing. There is no implication by the human body that it is a human body -- it is exclusively inference on our part that human body indicates a human being.

If I asked you to describe yourself, are you telling me that you would not include any feature of your human body? I hope you never have to describe yourself to someone who has never met you and looking to pick you up at an airport or something.

Why do leopards have spots is a scientific question.

"How" is a more important question. Identifying processes is a core scientific endeavor. Identifying reason and purpose is a philosophical endeavor.

"How" tells us the processes the evolution of leopards under went to get spots. Actually, this might be a more difficult question to answer than "why." The why might be due to some reaction-diffusion equations that tell us why irregularities can produce patterns. It may have a lot to do with Turing's principle. How is difficult to answer since we don't know the genes responsible for the evolutionary process.

If you don't ask that question, then there's little reason to believe in God since God is the only satisfactory answer to the big why questions.

Thank you for proving my point.

Yeah, but if you don't ask why do the leopards have spots then there is little reason to believe that reaction-diffusion equations are important in mathematical patterns. If your point isn't that we should try our best at being ignorant of the world around us, then I don't see what point you would be making.

semantic concepts... dictate how reality works (e.g., why the Universe cannot exist without there being spacetime(s)).

...existence is not an attribute. This is a causal unvierse, fine. But only in the fact that something caused it to come into existence. Even you stated that the condition L (required for the universe to exist) was a one-time operation. Therefore, the cause is gone. The universe exists, and we can't cry over spilled milk. Here we are.

This is not a correct interpretation of what I said. L is one-time, but that should be understood in the sense that there is no real temporal passage. The cause is not gone anymore than yesterday is gone. All the yesterdays and tomorrows exist as if they were spread out spatially over a city block. The cause of all of these yesterdays, nows, and tomorrows hover over that city block providing the whole block with a cause for its existence. The block itself is constructed according to a plan where each house plan is progressively determined by the previous house plan, but they all exist simultaneously. We aren't crying about this situation, rather we are looking for the most cogent solution which happens to be a meaningful solution to life of a human being.

The idea that existence describes existence doesn't make any sense.

I don't believe I've stated that trivial tautology. What I have said is that L brings about a material world. It does more than describe it, it instantiates its existence.

...it is a great leap to state that every single event must be tested/verified by an intelligence to see if it corresponds with L before it can be carried out. Within a pachinko machine, only those events that could ever occur inside the machine will ever occur. Strict mechanics. Now, if we assume that L ever existed at all, then we could describe the universe as a giant pachinko machine simply in terms of effects. That we can describe the nature of L as being causal does not mean that we must describe the effects of this cause as being causal themselves.

It's not a great leap to assume logic exists as a primitive. Therefore it's not a leap to say that truth exists. And, it's not a leap to say that criteria for truth exists. Nor is it a leap to say that the criteria of truth must be satisfied for truth to exist. Now, if a criteria must be satisfied against a statement of L, how do you suppose that is possible without a background Mind making it possible? The problem is that you are not taking the first assumption of "logic existing" serious enough. This is postulation which you must derive any of your statements from. It's not good enough to think of L instantiating the universe as an event that may or may not happened a longtime ago. For the moment, suppose that L exists and that it is in effect for every situation. In that perspective of L, you need to view L as a mindful existence with respect to the universe. It must comprehend what is happening down here, and it would need an infinite mind to do so.

Let's assume for the moment that the Bell experiments are fine and dandy -- the loopholes are explained, the experimental errors are insignificant, the preparations of the atoms/substrate do not affect the outcome, etc. etc. We still don't know the processes behind this effect. Why is it that you assume an intelligence is required to explain this effect?

What is needed is an awareness by the universe to keep track of the particles and their states in the universe (throughout time and space), and enforce the quantum equation whenever and whereever that requirement is needed. This is the same attribute that I am describing of L on a much more limited spectrum. With L we are talking about an infinite number of theorems, and in the teleportation case we are talking about one equation that needs to be enforced. The intelligence required of this phenomena expands with the complexity of the theorem. So, for example, if the equation is a symmetry, it would appear no intelligence is required, just some brute fact of how nature operates. However, as you move over to a quantum ghost interference experiments where the laws of quantum mechanics require bizarre behavior, the laws must protect information that requires much more intelligent behavior in terms of tracking the movements of particles.

[harvey1]

I'd like to point out that the sort of nonlocality demonstrated by entangled states only serves to underline the incompleteness of quantum field theory. For example (and straight off the top of my head!), it might be that from within the geometry of Kaluza-Klein Space-time there exists a common intersection between every point in the three large spatial dimensions. Photons travelling at the speed of light see their journey from one side of the universe to the other as taking no time at all and for them every coordinate would look the same. I only toss this in because there's always a danger that we read something we shouldn't into a partial understanding of a given phenomenon.

However, when you step over into string theory, you are talking about two-dimensional mathematical entities where many of the quantum states are said not to represent a physical state. In other words, you are moving closer to an L conception than a materialist view.

[Bro Dave]

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?

We have discussed Absolutes at various times, and seem to agree that IF they exist, they are undiscoverable as such by us. Likewise, "nothing" is about as absolute an Absolute as came be imagined! With what words do we describe or attempt to explain that which does not exist? Since language only arises from experience, we could not possibly have experienced Absolutely "Nothing". It is a subset of proving a negative. It just cannot be done. Period!

Bro Dave

[Curious]

The argument I make is not that God does this so that this happens. My argument is that for logic to exist, truth must exist, agreed? For truth to exist there must be a criteria of truth, right? If the criteria is not satisfied, there can be no truth hence no logic, right? Satisfaction means that the statement of truth has met all of its conditions of truthfulness, and this requires a comprehension of what the statement means. Otherwise, how can a statement be satisfied for its truthfulness? If it cannot be, and I don't see how since a statement is an element of language which requires a mind, therefore saying immutable logic exists is the same as saying that a immutable mind exists as integral to the structure of reality. If you contend that this argument is not correct, then quote the passage that you find problemsome.

... based on making a conjecture such as "logic exists." It naturally follows from such a statement that mind exists, and the reason the mind exists is to validate the theorems that must also exist. I can follow this line of conjecture since it follows naturally from a premise that seems to be the case (i.e., that the universe is mathematical because it follows from a mathematical brute reality).

You may say that it is true that there is no life on venus. This would be true or false regardless of the question being asked. The truthfulness of the statement is wholly dependent upon the fact, the fact is not dependent upon the statement. Truth is dependent upon fact while logic is dependent upon understanding fact. While logic may require a mind, the fact, or truthfulness of the fact, requires no mind to ask the question or to answer it. The truthfulness of the fact is not determined by the mind but by the state of the fact. You seem to be asserting that fact is determined by some preordained truth table which all fact must magically adhere to rather than the truth being derived from the state of the fact.

[QED]

"How" tells us the processes the evolution of leopards under went to get spots. Actually, this might be a more difficult question to answer than "why." The why might be due to some reaction-diffusion equations that tell us why irregularities can produce patterns. It may have a lot to do with Turing's principle. How is difficult to answer since we don't know the genes responsible for the evolutionary process.

Funny coincidence that, I'm trying to write a program to create 2D textures using reaction-diffusion right now (anyone know of any open-source for this?)

It's not a great leap to assume logic exists as a primitive.
I feel that this is the case, but I can't begin to assess the assumptions that are being made to arrive at this feeling.
Therefore it's not a leap to say that truth exists. And, it's not a leap to say that criteria for truth exists. Nor is it a leap to say that the criteria of truth must be satisfied for truth to exist.
OK so far with the caveat that the very first premise might be unsound.
Now, if a criteria must be satisfied against a statement of L, how do you suppose that is possible without a background Mind making it possible?

This, as we all know, is where the problem arises. It seems obvious to me that mind is just another measurement device. A spirit-level or Operational-Amplifier equally qualify for this sort of job. Using your terminology, reduced states of these measuring devices would also facilitate satisfaction of logical criteria if the initial assumptions are correct.

The problem is that you are not taking the first assumption of "logic existing" serious enough. This is postulation which you must derive any of your statements from. It's not good enough to think of L instantiating the universe as an event that may or may not happened a longtime ago. For the moment, suppose that L exists and that it is in effect for every situation. In that perspective of L, you need to view L as a mindful existence with respect to the universe. It must comprehend what is happening down here, and it would need an infinite mind to do so.

I don't get it.

[ST88]

Of course I'm talking about if logic predates a material world. If all there is is a material world, then there are no laws, no symmetries, no truths, just material meanderings. However, that just brings us back to the question on why are we so lucky that material meanderings were so sophisticated that it could in principle produce advanced structures and events (e.g., inflating universes).

"So lucky?" For all we know there have been millions of such universes created with subtle differences. But like any evolutionary process, this one has continued to such a degree that here we are. Are we to infer from this that complicated = design?

if I said that a human being require human bodies to live, it would be the same thing as saying that human bodies describe what being a human being is.

I disagree. A human body does no such thing. There is no implication by the human body that it is a human body -- it is exclusively inference on our part that human body indicates a human being.

If I asked you to describe yourself, are you telling me that you would not include any feature of your human body? I hope you never have to describe yourself to someone who has never met you and looking to pick you up at an airport or something.

Heh. I would be describing the physical appearance of the vessel which my "self" uses to walk around. But since I can have plastic surgery if I so choose, or alter the color of my skin with various chemicals, or lose a leg or an eye, dye my hair, receive HGH injections, etc., I would describe who I am as separate from my physical appearance.

Why do leopards have spots is a scientific question.

"How" is a more important question. Identifying processes is a core scientific endeavor. Identifying reason and purpose is a philosophical endeavor.

"How" tells us the processes the evolution of leopards under went to get spots. Actually, this might be a more difficult question to answer than "why." The why might be due to some reaction-diffusion equations that tell us why irregularities can produce patterns. It may have a lot to do with Turing's principle. How is difficult to answer since we don't know the genes responsible for the evolutionary process.

Hence the scientific inquiry instead of the philosophical inquiry.

If you don't ask that question, then there's little reason to believe in God since God is the only satisfactory answer to the big why questions.

Thank you for proving my point.

Yeah, but if you don't ask why do the leopards have spots then there is little reason to believe that reaction-diffusion equations are important in mathematical patterns. If your point isn't that we should try our best at being ignorant of the world around us, then I don't see what point you would be making.

To a large extent we each individually answer the "why" questions based on our own world views. "Why is the leopard still existing as a creature and not extinct?" We can answer this with a broad description of evolutionary and adapatability patterns if we like. But we won't really know the answer in detail until we ask how those processes work. The "why" questions lead to answers which have meanings that themselves must be interpreted and defined.

semantic concepts... dictate how reality works (e.g., why the Universe cannot exist without there being spacetime(s)).

...existence is not an attribute. This is a causal unvierse, fine. But only in the fact that something caused it to come into existence. Even you stated that the condition L (required for the universe to exist) was a one-time operation. Therefore, the cause is gone. The universe exists, and we can't cry over spilled milk. Here we are.

This is not a correct interpretation of what I said. L is one-time, but that should be understood in the sense that there is no real temporal passage. The cause is not gone anymore than yesterday is gone. All the yesterdays and tomorrows exist as if they were spread out spatially over a city block. The cause of all of these yesterdays, nows, and tomorrows hover over that city block providing the whole block with a cause for its existence. The block itself is constructed according to a plan where each house plan is progressively determined by the previous house plan, but they all exist simultaneously. We aren't crying about this situation, rather we are looking for the most cogent solution which happens to be a meaningful solution to life of a human being.

You make a bit of sense until that last part. But the temporal thing. Am I to take it that you believe that every bit of the past action and the future of the universe are stored somewhere in a vast warehouse of existence? If so, then we must believe that this universe was instantiated not like one of those little sponge toys that grows to 100 times its dry size, but that it was more accurately not there one instant and then there the next instant, like a VHS tape that comes in the mail one day. Being a materialist in this discussion, I find this hard to swallow. This means that the "Big Bang" event was actually more like a "Big Delivery" event. It must be easier to believe in nothingness knowing that the full-temporal jacket universe was poofed into being before time even started at 0.

And that "meaningful solution" thing, where did that come from? If this is all the result of a search for meaning, then your entire thesis is tainted with that preconceived idea.

The idea that existence describes existence doesn't make any sense.

I don't believe I've stated that trivial tautology. What I have said is that L brings about a material world. It does more than describe it, it instantiates its existence.

I agreed that L instantiated the universe. I don't get where it described existence of that universe, however. Though the fallout from L can be seen throughout the universe, and the fact that the rules of L necessarily caused the rules of the universe, using the term description is too loaded to be of any real value. It is at best a metaphor for us to use to conceptualize it.

It's not a great leap to assume logic exists as a primitive. Therefore it's not a leap to say that truth exists. And, it's not a leap to say that criteria for truth exists. Nor is it a leap to say that the criteria of truth must be satisfied for truth to exist.

Right here is where I fall off your wagon. "Satisfaction" is a concept we place upon the criteria for truth for our own convenience when discussing the process. It is not the thing, it is the description of the thing.

Now, if a criteria must be satisfied against a statement of L, how do you suppose that is possible without a background Mind making it possible? The problem is that you are not taking the first assumption of "logic existing" serious enough. This is postulation which you must derive any of your statements from. It's not good enough to think of L instantiating the universe as an event that may or may not happened a longtime ago. For the moment, suppose that L exists and that it is in effect for every situation. In that perspective of L, you need to view L as a mindful existence with respect to the universe. It must comprehend what is happening down here, and it would need an infinite mind to do so.

L exists and it is in effect for every situation. This is the TOE that everyone's buzzing about. L is the Force. OK. Now, why does L need to be sentient? There is no need for this. If you choose to believe that some things that happen in nature are far too bizarre and complex to have happened by themselves, then you can burn down the laboratories and blow up the field experiments. Because what you're saying, in essence, is that we will never find a reasonable mechanistic explanation for those things that we currently can't explain in this way and we were never meant to.

What is needed is an awareness by the universe to keep track of the particles and their states in the universe (throughout time and space), and enforce the quantum equation whenever and whereever that requirement is needed. This is the same attribute that I am describing of L on a much more limited spectrum. With L we are talking about an infinite number of theorems, and in the teleportation case we are talking about one equation that needs to be enforced. The intelligence required of this phenomena expands with the complexity of the theorem. So, for example, if the equation is a symmetry, it would appear no intelligence is required, just some brute fact of how nature operates. However, as you move over to a quantum ghost interference experiments where the laws of quantum mechanics require bizarre behavior, the laws must protect information that requires much more intelligent behavior in terms of tracking the movements of particles.

As I understand it, the effects are not that complicated. With teleportation, one side is in one state and the other side is in the opposite state. As you telling me that it requires an active intelligence to point either thumbs up or thumbs down?

Tell me, do you think this effect appears in the universe by itself? Does this kind of teleportation happen when we aren't looking, or only when we're looking?

[Curious]

Funny coincidence that, I'm trying to write a program to create 2D textures using reaction-diffusion right now (anyone know of any open-source for this?)

I don't know what you are programming in but you could try this:
create plane
populate plane(particles with rgb values)
add spot(X particles value rgb)
Particles have radial spread value(affected by plane resistance if you like which could be unequal) with a particle halflife where movement ceases for individual particle after x time. Give X particles cutoff point to stop spread if required. Use plane RGB values to calculate final colour.Long half life with close cutoff will give a leopard like spot.
You could use particle size, particle wetness values(diminishing and sharing with surrounding colours instead of halflife) with a wetness or density gradient (to simulate osmotic pressure)if you wanted and virtual holes in the plane to simulate porosity to give more realistic diffusion effects.