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]

The only element in the universe that can comprehend a statement (or language) is mind. Even a CPU is not comprehending a statement.

Of course, we know that CPUs are just complex configurations of gates and flip-flops. But what are brains? This isn't the place for a debate about artificial intelligence but it has yet to be demonstrated that something magical is going on in brains that causes comprehension.

Mind as we understand it can only run on a material substrate. This seems like a pretty reasonable thing to say wouldn't you agree?

No, I disagree. There are many repeatable phenomena in the natural world. For example, there are properties of biological sources where the identical phenomena is reproduced in non-biological sources. One of the major lessons of the Cosmos is that identical phenomena can be exhibited from multiple sources. Even mathematical designs, a strictly human artifact of intelligence, are reproduced by nature. Mind seems to me an easy property for reality to possess. Afterall, what is mind? To me, it is a cognitive property that possesses an understanding of language. If reality is language-driven, as it appears, then a mind embedded in the nature of reality would be a natural outcome.

But here you're still only describing phenomena arising from material interactions. I'm happy with these in all their diversity -- I personally think we will be able to come up with AI ourselves before too long. Unfortunately I couldn't access the second link you provided: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0502162 ...But when it comes to the usual examples of immaterial intelligence that you find in QM, I can only repeat my concerns that the apparent 'strangeness' is only a product of our incomplete interpretation.

[harvey1]

I am not an atheist so why would I wish to conform to this point of view?

Sorry abt that, I forgot that you were a theist.

You assert that logic determines fact and the interaction of fact and this is external and precedent to fact. I suggest that the logic of the fact is due to the nature of the fact and this nature is brought about by the fact itself.

Well, this all leads us back to the beginning. What was the first fact? Was it God? Was it the material universe? I say it is "the nature of causality itself" since this seems to me the most logical place to begin. This nature cannot be equated to a material reality since causality would then be an aspect of a material world.

This is what I sought to explain by my examples. The water acts like water because it is water not because a mind or external logic determines this. The logic and interaction need only exist when the fact itself exists. Steel is hard due to its physical nature, that is why it is hard and we can change its hardness by changing it physically. Diamond is hard due to it's physical structure while graphite is soft, the fact that diamond can cut graphite is due to this fact. You can say it is logical that diamond cuts graphite but you derive this logic from the nature of the fact.

No, I derive this from the nature of the laws of physics which are mathematical laws which is language-based laws. The material structure of diamonds, water, etc., is a result of quantum theory and these laws are mathematical-based. Hence, every material thing is a result of language and language. Language without mind is meaningless jabber.

[harvey1]

Hey, give the algorithm designers a little break, they only came up with fractals not too long ago. How long are you going to give them to come up with such calculations before you think they should really give up on this? Or should we just chuck it all now and say to heck with it?

Of course not. However, just because a Royal Flush is possible to get on your first trip to Vegas, the first time you gambled, etc, doesn't mean that it is likely that you will get that Royal Flush, does it? What I want to know is why was it likely that we would get a Royal Flush when everything we know about other conceivable possibilities indicate that we would get no cards versus a nice Royal Flush?

[harvey1]

Of course, we know that CPUs are just complex configurations of gates and flip-flops. But what are brains? This isn't the place for a debate about artificial intelligence but it has yet to be demonstrated that something magical is going on in brains that causes comprehension.

All the more reason not to limit comprehension to biological substrates.

But here you're still only describing phenomena arising from material interactions. I'm happy with these in all their diversity -- I personally think we will be able to come up with AI ourselves before too long. Unfortunately I couldn't access the second link you provided: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0502162 ...But when it comes to the usual examples of immaterial intelligence that you find in QM, I can only repeat my concerns that the apparent 'strangeness' is only a product of our incomplete interpretation.

Let's talk about this subject in the other thread that I started.

[Curious]

Well, this all leads us back to the beginning. What was the first fact? Was it God? Was it the material universe? I say it is "the nature of causality itself" since this seems to me the most logical place to begin. This nature cannot be equated to a material reality since causality would then be an aspect of a material world.

But causality by definition is dependent upon time which itself is an aspect of material reality.

... You can say it is logical that diamond cuts graphite but you derive this logic from the nature of the fact.

No, I derive this from the nature of the laws of physics which are mathematical laws which is language-based laws. The material structure of diamonds, water, etc., is a result of quantum theory and these laws are mathematical-based. Hence, every material thing is a result of language and language. Language without mind is meaningless jabber.

You seem to believe that the laws of physics are some form of legislation rather than the rules of interaction. Opposite poles attract, similar poles repel, this is due to the physical nature of the forces involved.
Using mathematical formulae it is possible to derive any number so obviously the use of mathematics can solve equations as long as there are certain rules. These rules do not have to be pre-written but may just reflect the nature of the interactions measured.
To say E=MCsquared does not make M equal mass, it just stands for it, it is a symbol not the entity itself. The equation holds no power over the interaction, it merely serves as a means of understanding it. The energy is not correct because it agrees with the equation, the equation is correct because it agrees with the energy.
Structure is not the result of quantum theory as you state, you would be more correct to say structure is the result of quantum mechanics. The first term is an idea, the second is the mechanism that the idea seeks to understand.
The language explains nature it does not form it.

[harvey1]

But causality by definition is dependent upon time which itself is an aspect of material reality.

That's not necessarily the case. Closed timelike curves (CTCs), for example, are theoretical causal chains that are considered possible in general relativity, but they do not reflect causality in any traditional sense.

You seem to believe that the laws of physics are some form of legislation rather than the rules of interaction. Opposite poles attract, similar poles repel, this is due to the physical nature of the forces involved. Using mathematical formulae it is possible to derive any number so obviously the use of mathematics can solve equations as long as there are certain rules. These rules do not have to be pre-written but may just reflect the nature of the interactions measured.

Sure, and they just may represent the rules by which the interactions are allowed to occur. In terms of which interpretation is correct, I do not see how one could defend an interpretation where the laws are not pre-written. In any case, that's a long-winded discussion which I don't feel like getting into on this thread.

To say E=MCsquared does not make M equal mass, it just stands for it, it is a symbol not the entity itself. The equation holds no power over the interaction, it merely serves as a means of understanding it. The energy is not correct because it agrees with the equation, the equation is correct because it agrees with the energy.

Perhaps, however that would leave us asking a big question such as why special relativity can be derived from Noether's theorem with regard to a symmetry of time-invariance. Of course, even Einstein derived e=mc^2 from two postulates (namely, principle of relativity and invariance of c). There's also interesting work that shows these equations can be derived from information-theoretic concepts without referring to physical characteristics of the world.

Structure is not the result of quantum theory as you state, you would be more correct to say structure is the result of quantum mechanics. The first term is an idea, the second is the mechanism that the idea seeks to understand. The language explains nature it does not form it.

Quantum mechanics is one of the quantum theories that determine structure, however quantum mechanics tells us nothing about the local gauge symmetries that are needed to explain much of the structure in the world. That's why I didn't name quantum mechanics specifically. Even the successor to the standard model (assuming there will be one) will most likely be a quantum theory (e.g., string theory(s), quantum loop theory(s), twistor theory, polytope theory, topos theory, etc.).

[Curious]

But causality by definition is dependent upon time which itself is an aspect of material reality.

That's not necessarily the case. Closed timelike curves (CTCs), for example, are theoretical causal chains that are considered possible in general relativity, but they do not reflect causality in any traditional sense.

And these are still dependent upon spacetime which itself is an aspect of material reality.

In any case, that's a long-winded discussion which I don't feel like getting into on this thread.

Ok, but you should not ignore the argument

To say E=MCsquared does not make M equal mass, it just stands for it, it is a symbol not the entity itself. The equation holds no power over the interaction, it merely serves as a means of understanding it. The energy is not correct because it agrees with the equation, the equation is correct because it agrees with the energy.

Perhaps, however that would leave us asking a big question such as why special relativity can be derived from Noether's theorem with regard to a symmetry of time-invariance. Of course, even Einstein derived e=mc^2 from two postulates (namely, principle of relativity and invariance of c).

Really? You might also ask why time dilation can be worked out using Pythagoras. This says nothing in regard to the causative agent but says a great deal about space-time geometry in the material reality.

Structure is not the result of quantum theory as you state, you would be more correct to say structure is the result of quantum mechanics. The first term is an idea, the second is the mechanism that the idea seeks to understand. The language explains nature it does not form it.

Quantum mechanics is one of the quantum theories that determine structure, however quantum mechanics tells us nothing about the local gauge symmetries that are needed to explain much of the structure in the world. That's why I didn't name quantum mechanics specifically

Notice I said you would be more correct by using mechanics rather than theory. I assumed any argument I brought about using non sub-atomic mechanisms could be countered by the argument that atomic structure is dependent upon sub-atomic mechanisms.
My main point here though is that it is not the idea of the mechanisms that brings about the structure but the actual mechanism itself. In the same way, the theory of evolution cannot be said to bring about evolution but the evolutionary mechanisms may be.

[harvey1]

And these are still dependent upon spacetime which itself is an aspect of material reality.

The term "material reality" gets pretty murky in most of the recent cosmological theories. Even string theory which many materialists instantly cite as their savior are quick to ignore that strings have many non-physical states. Even talking about a real singularities which many theories do nowadays is talking about non-physical states.

Ok, but you should not ignore the argument

I don't. I've been in many of debates on this subject.

Really? You might also ask why time dilation can be worked out using Pythagoras. This says nothing in regard to the causative agent but says a great deal about space-time geometry in the material reality.

I'm not sure what you mean. In my view, the fact that time-invariant symmetries allow us to arrive at e=mc^2 is a testimony of how a mathematical nature of the universe makes many of the attributes of spacetime as pre-written. Nowadays cosmologists are willing to think that our spacetime is just another spacetime bubble that pops in from nothing and inflates to become just another universe. I would say that a number of cosmologists think this way. It seems that you want to exclude it as a possibility. Why?

Notice I said you would be more correct by using mechanics rather than theory. I assumed any argument I brought about using non sub-atomic mechanisms could be countered by the argument that atomic structure is dependent upon sub-atomic mechanisms.
My main point here though is that it is not the idea of the mechanisms that brings about the structure but the actual mechanism itself. In the same way, the theory of evolution cannot be said to bring about evolution but the evolutionary mechanisms may be.

Oh, I misunderstood you. Well, at the moment there is no hidden variables known to quantum mechanics that make the laws true of something tangible. Quantum theories describe the way the world is (or at least the way we think the world is), and this way is a mathematical one in which virtual particles and possibly bubble universes arise from nothing. The laws themselves exist which bring about the world of structures that we see. Of course, this is still speculative, but science cannot be constructed with the idea that virtual particles do not exist (or exist as something other than temporary particles).

[Curious]

And these are still dependent upon spacetime which itself is an aspect of material reality.

The term "material reality" gets pretty murky in most of the recent cosmological theories. Even string theory which many materialists instantly cite as their savior are quick to ignore that strings have many non-physical states. Even talking about a real singularities which many theories do nowadays is talking about non-physical states.

To put it another way, the dependence upon space-time shows that causality could not be precedent to space-time.

Really? You might also ask why time dilation can be worked out using Pythagoras. This says nothing in regard to the causative agent but says a great deal about space-time geometry in the material reality.

I'm not sure what you mean. In my view, the fact that time-invariant symmetries allow us to arrive at e=mc^2 is a testimony of how a mathematical nature of the universe makes many of the attributes of spacetime as pre-written. Nowadays cosmologists are willing to think that our spacetime is just another spacetime bubble that pops in from nothing and inflates to become just another universe. I would say that a number of cosmologists think this way. It seems that you want to exclude it as a possibility. Why?

It is possible to calculate time dilation using the same calculation as is used to calculate the length of a triangles side(or a squares, pentagon, hexagon etc upto and including a circles not to mention the radii of the shapes or the area). This does not show that the equation is precedent to the geometries but it does show that the geometries have certain similarities. I do not exclude any possibility but I do require evidence before I am willing to accept any theory as having particular credit. As for what certain cosmologist may or not believe, I try to stick with what cosmologists know and can prove. It would be unfair to hold one group to a different standard than I would hold another.

[QED]

Quantum theories describe the way the world is (or at least the way we think the world is), and this way is a mathematical one in which virtual particles and possibly bubble universes arise from nothing.

Michael S. Turner has something interesting to say on this:

A key feature of inflation-the fact that it makes the present state of the universe insensitive to how it began-throws up a kind of screen that blocks knowledge of earlier times. Further, inflation multiplies the possibilities and exponentially increases the territory to be explored. With an infinite number of inflationary bubbles that will never communicate with one another, even complete knowledge of our universe amounts to infinitesimal knowledge of the whole. If the Copernican Principle, the guiding principle in cosmology for the past 400 years, is correct, then this is not an obstacle in practice. (The Copernican Principle holds that we occupy a typical place in the cosmos.)

However, in a universe of infinite possibilities, even the extremely improbable often and infinitely happen. It could be that our bubble universe is very atypical. For example, it may be that the typical bubble never evolves living creatures. If this is the case, then our view of the universe is highly anthropocentric. (Before inflation, we faced an infinite universe that we could never fully explore. However, the fact that the great portion we could see looked so similar to our own neighborhood, gave us confidence in the applicability of the Copernican Principle.)