Flaw here: "Nothing is unstable" begs the question every bit as much as "God" does. Yes, if you way "the reason there is something is because of God," then it is necessary to ask "well, why is God?"
But if one says "Nothing is unstable," one must ask "But why is nothing unstable?"
"Because of physical laws x and y."
"But why are those laws that way?"
Etc.
The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" always can lead to one of three things:
1) An infinite regress 2) A closed loop 3) An abandonment of causality
The theist chooses 3) and abandons causality at God. This is not an indefensible approach but it is only intellectually acceptable if the theist admits that this is what s/he is doing.
The theist chooses 3) and abandons causality at God. This is not an indefensible approach but it is only intellectually acceptable if the theist admits that this is what s/he is doing.
I always like it when atheists I also like it when atheists object to the concept of a theistic creator on the ground that it 'violates physical causality'; and then in the next breath say, 'the universe/multiverse has no cause'. Which means that we have a big effect with no cause; as if that's not a 'violation of causality'.
Dan'l is quite right to characterize Stenger's response as question-begging. Stenger (following Frank Wilczek) identifies "nothing" with a well-defined quantum state and so misreads the original question. However, he is not the only person to have done this. Bede Rundle has devoted an entire book to a somewhat different misreading of the question.
One thing that puzzles me though is the claim that 'The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" always can lead to one of three things...' I would have thought that the question leads absolutely nowhere. There is no possibility of addressing the question without presupposing _something_ (metaphysical necessities or explanatory principles or rules of logic or laws of physics or whatever), so the implication "If nothing then..." can never be completed.
There is no possibility of addressing the question without presupposing _something_
That is essentially my choice (1), an infinite regress.
My favorite attempt to escape this is Stephen Hawking's pondering whether there is some equation so beautiful that it calls a universe into being to embody it.
Suppose that absolute nothingness obtains. Then we can ask, is it true that absolute nothingness obtains? If it is not true, then absolute nothingness does not obtain, and therefore there is something rather than nothing. But if it is true, then there is truth, and hence a way things are, and thus some kind of reality, i.e. something, even if it is totally barren of physical or concrete objects. Hence, contra our initial supposition, absolute nothingness is impossible. That's why there is (necessarily) something rather than nothing.
The Jocaxian Nothingness [Nada Jocaxiano] João Carlos Holland de Barcellos translated by Debora Policastro
The “Jocaxian Nothingness” (JN) is the “Nothingness” that exists. It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.
In order to understand and intuit JN as an “existent nothingness”, we can mentally build it as follows: we withdraw all the matter, energy and the field they generate from the universe. Then we can withdraw dark energy and dark matter. What is left is something that is not the nonexistent. Let us continue our mental experiment and suppress elements of the universe: now, we withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. If we do not forget to withdraw anything, what is left is a JN: an existent nothingness.
JN is different from the Nothingness we generally think of. The commonly believed nothingness, which we might call “Trivial Nothingness” to distinguish it from the JN, is something from which nothing can arise, that is, the “Trivial Nothing” follows a rule: “Nothing can happen”. Thus, the “Trivial Nothingness”, the nothingness people generally think of when talking about “nothingness”, is not the simpler possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.
Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists. Such definition is dubious and contains some contradictions as: “If in the nothingness nothing exists, then, nothingness itself does not exist”. No. First, Jocax defined what it means to exist: “Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality”. Therefore, JN has been defined as something that:
1- Has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.)
2- Has no laws (no rules of any kind).
Being free of any elements, JN does not presume the existence of any existing thing but its own and, by the “Occam’s Razor”, it must be the simpler state possible of nature, therefore with no need for explanations about its origin. JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past. That is, JN would be the universe itself – defined as a set of all existing things – in its minimal state. Thus we can also say the Universe (being a JN) has always existed.
JN, as well as everything that can be understood by means of logic, must follow the tautology: “it may or may NOT happen”. This tautology – absolute logical truth – as we shall see, has also a semantic value in JN: it allows things to happen (or not).
We cannot say that events in the JN must necessarily occur. Eventually, it is possible that nothing really happens, that is, JN may continue “indefinitely” (time does not exist in a JN) without changing its initial state and with no occurrences. But there is a possibility that random phenomena can derive from this absolute nothingness. This conclusion comes logically from the analysis of a system without premises: as JN, by definition, does not have laws, it can be shaped as a logical system without premises.
Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the our cosmo, since it is the simpler possible state nature could present: a state of such simplicity there would not be the need to explain its existence. And, by logical consequence of this state, anything could be (or not) randomized, even our physical laws and elementary particles.
8 comments:
Flaw here: "Nothing is unstable" begs the question every bit as much as "God" does. Yes, if you way "the reason there is something is because of God," then it is necessary to ask "well, why is God?"
But if one says "Nothing is unstable," one must ask "But why is nothing unstable?"
"Because of physical laws x and y."
"But why are those laws that way?"
Etc.
The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" always can lead to one of three things:
1) An infinite regress
2) A closed loop
3) An abandonment of causality
The theist chooses 3) and abandons causality at God. This is not an indefensible approach but it is only intellectually acceptable if the theist admits that this is what s/he is doing.
dan'l
The theist chooses 3) and abandons causality at God. This is not an indefensible approach but it is only intellectually acceptable if the theist admits that this is what s/he is doing.
I always like it when atheists I also like it when atheists object to the concept of a theistic creator on the ground that it 'violates physical causality'; and then in the next breath say, 'the universe/multiverse has no cause'. Which means that we have a big effect with no cause; as if that's not a 'violation of causality'.
Dan'l is quite right to characterize Stenger's response as question-begging. Stenger (following Frank Wilczek) identifies "nothing" with a well-defined quantum state and so misreads the original question. However, he is not the only person to have done this. Bede Rundle has devoted an entire book to a somewhat different misreading of the question.
One thing that puzzles me though is the claim that 'The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" always can lead to one of three things...' I would have thought that the question leads absolutely nowhere. There is no possibility of addressing the question without presupposing _something_ (metaphysical necessities or explanatory principles or rules of logic or laws of physics or whatever), so the implication "If nothing then..." can never be completed.
Anonymous wrote:
There is no possibility of addressing the question without presupposing _something_
That is essentially my choice (1), an infinite regress.
My favorite attempt to escape this is Stephen Hawking's pondering whether there is some equation so beautiful that it calls a universe into being to embody it.
Heh.
Stenger's esssay is deeply stupid.
"Nothing is a state that is the simplest of all conceivable states." Uh, Victor, a state is a something.
David Calvani
Absolute nothingness is impossible. Why?
Suppose that absolute nothingness obtains. Then we can ask, is it true that absolute nothingness obtains? If it is not true, then absolute nothingness does not obtain, and therefore there is something rather than nothing. But if it is true, then there is truth, and hence a way things are, and thus some kind of reality, i.e. something, even if it is totally barren of physical or concrete objects. Hence, contra our initial supposition, absolute nothingness is impossible. That's why there is (necessarily) something rather than nothing.
Something rather than nothing??
chk out my views here..
http://neozubair.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/nothingness/
The Jocaxian Nothingness [Nada Jocaxiano]
João Carlos Holland de Barcellos
translated by Debora Policastro
The “Jocaxian Nothingness” (JN) is the “Nothingness” that exists. It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.
In order to understand and intuit JN as an “existent nothingness”, we can mentally build it as follows: we withdraw all the matter, energy and the field they generate from the universe. Then we can withdraw dark energy and dark matter. What is left is something that is not the nonexistent. Let us continue our mental experiment and suppress elements of the universe: now, we withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. If we do not forget to withdraw anything, what is left is a JN: an existent nothingness.
JN is different from the Nothingness we generally think of. The commonly believed nothingness, which we might call “Trivial Nothingness” to distinguish it from the JN, is something from which nothing can arise, that is, the “Trivial Nothing” follows a rule: “Nothing can happen”. Thus, the “Trivial Nothingness”, the nothingness people generally think of when talking about “nothingness”, is not the simpler possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.
Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists. Such definition is dubious and contains some contradictions as: “If in the nothingness nothing exists, then, nothingness itself does not exist”. No. First, Jocax defined what it means to exist: “Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality”. Therefore, JN has been defined as something that:
1- Has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.)
2- Has no laws (no rules of any kind).
Being free of any elements, JN does not presume the existence of any existing thing but its own and, by the “Occam’s Razor”, it must be the simpler state possible of nature, therefore with no need for explanations about its origin. JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past. That is, JN would be the universe itself – defined as a set of all existing things – in its minimal state. Thus we can also say the Universe (being a JN) has always existed.
JN, as well as everything that can be understood by means of logic, must follow the tautology: “it may or may NOT happen”. This tautology – absolute logical truth – as we shall see, has also a semantic value in JN: it allows things to happen (or not).
We cannot say that events in the JN must necessarily occur. Eventually, it is possible that nothing really happens, that is, JN may continue “indefinitely” (time does not exist in a JN) without changing its initial state and with no occurrences. But there is a possibility that random phenomena can derive from this absolute nothingness. This conclusion comes logically from the analysis of a system without premises: as JN, by definition, does not have laws, it can be shaped as a logical system without premises.
Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the our cosmo, since it is the simpler possible state nature could present: a state of such simplicity there would not be the need to explain its existence. And, by logical consequence of this state, anything could be (or not) randomized, even our physical laws and elementary particles.
Post a Comment