There's no such thing as 'nothing'.

[lifegazer]

(1) Experience cannot arise from absolutely nothing.

(2) Therefore, Something exists - as opposed to 'nothing'.
(3) If existence is indivisible, then it is absolutely singular. No explanation needed.
(4) If existence is indivisible, then it is boundless. Why? Because a singular existence cannot be bounded by something else (contradicts the prior conclusion)... and 'nothing' is incapable of embracing (extending itself around) any finite entity.
(5) Since existence is boundless (whether indivisible or not!!!), then 'nothing' no longer has any significance or meaning with regards philosophical discussion pertaining to "reality". I.e., 'nothing' is a concept which has now (31/03/05 01.29 am GMT+1) officially become obsolete and extinct.
In other words, 'nothing' has no meaning. It's a false concept.

'Nothing' no longer has ANY meaning. It's just a concept that exists within our minds. But it has no philosophical significance with regards to existence or reality or causality.
Anybody who procalims that an effect can come from 'nothing' is a philosophical bozo.

Next time you use the word 'nothing' as an explanation for anything, realise that you are talking through your ass.
Btw, that includes the use of the word 'acausal' for EFFECTS that are PERCEIVED within awareness.

The above argument is a proof that there must be some real/definite cause for every effect. Which means that there is no such thing as an acausal effect (second highly significant fact of the night). Which means that acausality cannot be applied with regards ANY effect. Which means that it can only be applied with regards a PRIMAL-CAUSE.
Btw, a primal-cause cannot be perceived since perception is an effect.

Do I need to write another essay or do you get the point?

[Z]

{yawn}

I win! Argument by boredom.

[Z]

OK, here's the serious analysis:

Originally posted by lifegazer
(1) Experience cannot arise from absolutely nothing.

Agreed - nothing comes from nothing, nothing causes nothing. Experience - however you define it - must arise from some thing.

(2) Therefore, Something exists - as opposed to 'nothing'.

Also agreed.

(3) If existence is indivisible, then it is absolutely singular. No explanation needed.

Undetermined. Required: definitions of 'existence', 'indivisible', and 'singular'. However, based upon prior posts, 'existence' is assumed to mean 'all that is'; in which case, it is necessarily singular as such; if we propose multiple existences, then we cannot define 'existence' as 'all that is'. Are we substituting 'existence' for 'universe'? For 'reality'? Even in context of your prior posts, we cannot determine for certain what you are meaning - based upon premise 1) and 2), it seems as if you might be referring to 'that which experiences' - in which case, it is clear that 'that which experiences' is certainly divisible - and therefore, not singular, according to your statement. Again, though, this relies upon your definition of 'indivisible'. Finally, is 'singular' to mean 'alone' or 'one-dimensional'? Unique? Homogenous?

IN other words, to make a long-winded reply shorter (yeah, right) - what does 3) even mean?

(4) If existence is indivisible, then it is boundless. Why? Because a singular existence cannot be bounded by something else (contradicts the prior conclusion)...

First, based upon the fact that SO MANY terms here lack clear definition, I'd have to say this statement is uncertain. For one, we know not whether or not existence is indivisible - that is a premise of this argument, but unproven as such. For another, 'boundless' is another undefined concept. Generally, one uses 'boundless' when referring to an infinite set. After all, a set with no boundary extends infinitely in any direction. However, as related to 'existence', if we say that it is infinite, we have to closely examine the definition of indivisible. If, by indivisible, we mean unfragmentable, then there is no problem - existence is infinite and unfragmentable, and singular (the only 'existence' that is). This definition does not exclude existence from having discernable regions within it, or component pieces of it, etc. It merely means no piece of existence may be removed from existence - a restating of the conservation of matter and energy, it seems. And since we can discern regions within existence, and components of existence, this would seem consistant with our perceptions.

If, however, we are referring to a definition of 'boundless' to simply mean 'nothing is beyond it', then we are referring to a possibly finite existence, but one that must somehow be also recursive - folded in upon itself - as Einstein predicted. No matter in what direction within existence you go, you will wind up back where you started if you travel long enough... which allows for a finite, but boundless, universe. It is next to impossible to imagine what a model of such a universe would look like, because any concept we have would have 'edges' and 'boundaries' after a fashion - the 'blank space' around the paper, so to speak - which such a reality simply could not have. It is unimaginable to us, and therefore should not, via common sense, be possible; yet that is precisely what such indication would mean.

There are also problems for an infinite universe scenario as well, such as the problem of infinite mean mass... but there are also hypotheses that address these problems as well.

Nevertheless, based on a number of possible definitions, this still poses no potential problem - an 'indivisible' universe being 'boundless'.

and 'nothing' is incapable of embracing (extending itself around) any finite entity.

This is nonsensical. If an entity is finite, 'nothing' can embrace it - in fact, a singular entity, unless infinite, must be embraced by 'nothing'.

(5) Since existence is boundless (whether indivisible or not!!!), then 'nothing' no longer has any significance or meaning with regards philosophical discussion pertaining to "reality". [quote]

You mean absolutely nothing, right? It never had much signifigance anyway - nothing is just the lack of something.

If you want to get technical, 'nothing' in the absolute sense doesn't even exist within our reality - spacetime is everywhere, and as noted in other threads, spacetime is 'something'. So when we refer to nothing, we do so not in the absolute sense, but in the sense of 'a location in spacetime in which a matter/energy event is not occuring' - within reality, that is.

Beyond it - if there is a 'beyond' - we cannot say what exists, or does not exist.

[quote]I.e., 'nothing' is a concept which has now (31/03/05 01.29 am GMT+1) officially become obsolete and extinct.

Only if you are the officer of concepts - which you aren't. In fact, no authority exists for 'obsolete, extinct concepts' - which is why we could conceivably see a return to Newtonian space theory at any time. Remember, some folks still think the Earth is flat.

In other words, 'nothing' has no meaning. It's a false concept.

Wrong. In other words, 'nothing' cannot mean 'absolutely nothing' as referenced within existence, but can certainly have other meanings.

'Nothing' no longer has ANY meaning. It's just a concept that exists within our minds. But it has no philosophical significance with regards to existence or reality or causality.
Anybody who procalims that an effect can come from 'nothing' is a philosophical bozo.

Wrong, as demonstrated above; however, there is evidence that effects can come from spacetime with no other determining event preceeding it... namely, apparently spontaneous generation of particles. Keep in mind, at this point in time, we don't know if there is a cause for this... so labelling such generation 'acausal' is a bit presumptive at this point.

Next time you use the word 'nothing' as an explanation for anything, realise that you are talking through your ass.
Btw, that includes the use of the word 'acausal' for EFFECTS that are PERCEIVED within awareness.

{yawn}

The above argument is a proof that there must be some real/definite cause for every effect. Which means that there is no such thing as an acausal effect (second highly significant fact of the night). Which means that acausality cannot be applied with regards ANY effect. Which means that it can only be applied with regards a PRIMAL-CAUSE.

WRONG.

By your own definitions, 'acausal' is meaningless in all cases - which means we cannot define any cause as 'acausal' either. A primal-cause cannot come from nothing... unless that cause is, itself, infinite. Since an infinite thing must also be singular - nothing could possibly exist beyond an infinite thing - then, by prior definition, any so-called 'primal-cause' must, by definition, be 'existence'.

So, what you are trying to say, is that 'existence' causes 'everything within existence'? Well, I hate to say it, but that's a big ol' "DUH".

Btw, a primal-cause cannot be perceived since perception is an effect.

That statement is completely insensible. What does it mean? The primal-cause cannot cause an effect of perception?

OF course, lifegazer doesn't seem to realize yet - after all these posts - that perception (an effect) is a receptive effect, not a transmittive affector. Hence, we can certainly receive a perception of a so-called 'primal cause'.

Do I need to write another essay or do you get the point?

No, you need to clarify THIS essay. It seems very poorly constructed. You seem to have something, up until the end... Keep working on it.

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The above argument is a proof that there must be some real/definite cause for every effect.
Well since the definition of 'effect' is something that follows a cause then this is true, but utterly trivial and circular. If it didn't have a cause then it wouldn't be an effect. All you are saying is that every effect is an effect.
Which means that there is no such thing as an acausal effect (second highly significant fact of the night). Which means that acausality cannot be applied with regards ANY effect.
And ineffectuality cannot be applied to any cause. So what? Again you have just stated a definition, nothing more.

[TheERK]

OH GOD MAKE IT STOP JESUS





Please stop posting forever.

[Upchurch]

I see little more than assumptions and unsupported claims based on assumptions.

There is little point in addressing the post in detail since any response will simply be ignored and you will run to yet another new thread when backed into a corner.

G'night.

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The above argument is a proof that there must be some real/definite cause for every effect. Which means that there is no such thing as an acausal effect (second highly significant fact of the night). Which means that acausality cannot be applied with regards ANY effect. Which means that it can only be applied with regards a PRIMAL-CAUSE.
No, what it means is that acausality can only be applied to something that is not an effect, primal cause remains an assumption to be justified.

OK let's look at what we can really claim to know. At least one thing that does not have a cause.. Beyond that we are guessing. What this means is that the concept of cause/effect is not a reliable basis for any absolute conclusion.

Of course as I have said many times it does not really matter as the concept of a primal cause does not imply God since cause/effect does not imply intelligence or purpose. As you have never even tried to address this problem I assume you have no solution.

And you have still not said how you can claim to know anything about the properties and behaviour of non-spacial entities.

(4) If existence is indivisible, then it is boundless. Why? Because a singular existence cannot be bounded by something else (contradicts the prior conclusion)... and 'nothing' is incapable of embracing (extending itself around) any finite entity.
Of course if existence is non-spatial and non-temporal then the concept of boundedness does not exist whether or not existence is indivisible.

[Iacchus]

Nothing can be the absense of something though, if you're specific what that something is ... or isn't.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I see little more than assumptions and unsupported claims based on assumptions.

There is little point in addressing the post in detail since any response will simply be ignored and you will run to yet another new thread when backed into a corner.

G'night.
Then go away and stay away.

You're just embarrassed because you're forever stating that there are acausal events/effects that come from 'nothing'.

I would be embarrassed too.

[H3LL]

Privative.





I just like the word.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
(1) Experience cannot arise from absolutely nothing. Unlike Zaayrdragon I even disagree with this. Prove that experiences have not existed infinitely before asserting themselves to your awareness. Or prove that the relationship of cause and effect still applies to things that cannot be experienced. Yes, most things we appear to see in the universe appear to have a cause, but all information you obtain from observation is part of the illusion and therefore induced knowledge, which is logically invalid. Let me put it in yet another way.
You "know" that nothing can come from nothing only because you have never seen anything come from nothing. Only your experiences have led you to believe that nothing can come from nothing. However, if your experiences turn out to be a freak coincidence of uncaused random experiences, they have inadvertently led you to believe the exact opposite of what is true.

(2) Therefore, Something exists - as opposed to 'nothing'.Yes, but not "therefore". We know something exists: experiences.

(3) If existence is indivisible, then it is absolutely singular. No explanation needed.I'd say it's the other way around. I'm not sure if it goes both ways. By the way, have you already proven that existence is indivisible?
(4) If existence is indivisible, then it is boundless. Why? Because a singular existence cannot be bounded by something else (contradicts the prior conclusion)... and 'nothing' is incapable of embracing (extending itself around) any finite entity.Now this is absolute nonsense. A location in spacetime is indivisible. If you build a ball around it, it's embraced by something. Furthermore, Russdill can tell you, and has told you several times already, that spacetime can be finite and not be surrounded by anything by being curved (say hello to your good friend Einstein again).

'Nothing' no longer has ANY meaning. It's just a concept that exists within our minds. But it has no philosophical significance with regards to existence or reality or causality.
Anybody who procalims that an effect can come from 'nothing' is a philosophical bozo.Who denied that nothing is only a concept? However, the fact that you actually arrive at this conclusion using the above deduction is quite amazing.
Next time you use the word 'nothing' as an explanation for anything, realise that you are talking through your ass.
Btw, that includes the use of the word 'acausal' for EFFECTS that are PERCEIVED within awareness. This of course still tells us nothing (hey, there is a use for this word) about what it is that caused the "effects that are perceived within awareness", if they actually are effects.

The above argument is a proof that there must be some real/definite cause for every effect...Duh! You assumed the conclusion in your first sentence. There are shorter ways to deduce this conclusion from that premise.

Which means that there is no such thing as an acausal effect (second highly significant fact of the night). Which means that acausality cannot be applied with regards ANY effect.Yes, effects usually aren't uncaused. That's why they're called effects. However, this still doesn't constitute proof that sensations are caused.

Edited for fixing hasty submission

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're just embarrassed because you're forever stating that there are acausal events/effects that come from 'nothing'.More assumptions based on what you want to be true rather than on what can be shown to be true. :rolleyes:

[Throg]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
By your own definitions, 'acausal' is meaningless in all cases - which means we cannot define any cause as 'acausal' either. A primal-cause cannot come from nothing... unless that cause is, itself, infinite. Since an infinite thing must also be singular - nothing could possibly exist beyond an infinite thing - then, by prior definition, any so-called 'primal-cause' must, by definition, be 'existence'

Impeccably argued. The rest of your post was exceptionally well argued, too but I found this singularly well argued.

[uruk]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) If existence is indivisible, then it is absolutely singular. No explanation needed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who's existance? Our's is quite divisible. God's existance? You gotta prove he exists first, then you have find a verifiable way of examining his existance. Making "logical" arguments about it is essentialy guessing, unless you have something verifiable to back it up.

Also if "existance" is indivisible, how can aything happen within something that has no parts, that's if you are claiming homogenaity (is that a word?). If god is homogenous, how does god dream? Would not the dream be separate from but within god? if there are no "parts" to god, how does the dream happen?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Furthermore, Russdill can tell you, and has told you several times already, that spacetime can be finite and not be surrounded by anything by being curved (say hello to your good friend Einstein again). This kinda goes back to what I was saying in lifegazer's last abandoned train-wreck of a thread, he's implying that spacetime must be sitting in a meta-space. He's under the misunderstanding that if spacetime is curved into some sort of ball (or, more likely, a much more interesting shape), that there must necessarily be a "space" "outside" of spacetime.

It's a tough concept that few actually understand (because we're used to thinking 3-dimensionally), so I can't really blame him for not getting it. What I do blame him for is, upon learning the difference, continuing to attack the concept of spacetime without learning what that concept actually is. Like Don Quixote, he's attacking what he thinks is the giant when it is really just a windmill.

[P.S.A.]

None of you have caught the amazing hypocrisy in what Lifegazer's done here... think back to his earlier theory of God and the Dream. Do you all remember what he used to claim was the consequence of abandoning God...? Before I guided him towards making up a hell, just for me?

Yes, he used to argue that abandoning God led towards experience death, and with the death of experience came... Nothingness.

Next time you use the word 'nothing' as an explanation for anything, realise that you are talking through your ass.

Indeed Lifegazer, indeed... so you admit now you were talking out of your ass when you earlier based your entire "philosophy" upon fear of becoming "Nothing", yes?

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Upchurch
This kinda goes back to what I was saying in lifegazer's last abandoned train-wreck of a thread, he's implying that spacetime must be sitting in a meta-space. He's under the misunderstanding that if spacetime is curved into some sort of ball (or, more likely, a much more interesting shape), that there must necessarily be a "space" "outside" of spacetime.

It's a tough concept that few actually understand (because we're used to thinking 3-dimensionally), so I can't really blame him for not getting it. What I do blame him for is, upon learning the difference, continuing to attack the concept of spacetime without learning what that concept actually is. Like Don Quixote, he's attacking what he thinks is the giant when it is really just a windmill. I don't really understand it either, certainly not in an intuitive way. Then again, I only recently understood how spacetime is different from space and time, so maybe if I dive into it some more I'll sort of understand the math. Unfortunately exams are looming in the near future, and they are all about silly old Isaac's universe. But I do blame lifegazer for refusing to be informed on integral calculus and geometry.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
None of you have caught the amazing hypocrisy in what Lifegazer's done here...
Yep, sorry. Missed that. Thanks for pointing it out though.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
But I do blame lifegazer for refusing to be informed on integral calculus and geometry. The level of detail one wants to argue about a subject is directly proportional to the level of understanding one must have about that subject. I don't think it is necessary for him, per se, to understand that level of detail until he starts arguing on that level. He's not there yet.

He has yet to actually address spacetime itself but is stuck on, as you phrased it, silly old Isaac's universe.

On the other hand, he is delving into things (e.g. the limits of a curved spacetime) where that level of understanding certainly wouldn't hurt. But on the other, other hand, in order to reach that level, there are some fundamental holes in his education that would have to be addressed first, primarily in the area of philosophy, logic, and how the scientific method really works.

lifegazer is trying to run without first learning how to stand. The result is that he is flailing his legs wildly in the air, arrogantly complementing himself on how well he is doing while chastising the rest of us for not doing it like he does.

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Yep, sorry. Missed that. Thanks for pointing it out though.

I am usefull occassionally, but only occasionally! ;)

I've even gone back through his threads to find the exact point at which you can see Lifegazer originally arguing for "nothingness" just before he changes his arguments to experience never ending. It's here;

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51652&perpage=40&highlight=nothingness&pagenumber=14

Now I feel rather sad, and somewhat dirty too. But if he's going to persist in this debasement of self all the same, I recommend you just quote his earlier arguments from this thread back at him...

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Upchurch
lifegazer is trying to run without first learning how to stand. The result is that he is flailing his legs wildly in the air, arrogantly complementing himself on how well he is doing while chastising the rest of us for not doing it like he does. Yep, that's the problem, and also very amusing to visualise.:D

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... In other words, 'nothing' has no meaning. It's a false concept...

... Anybody who procalims that an effect can come from 'nothing' is a philosophical bozo...

... Next time you use the word 'nothing' as an explanation for anything, realise that you are talking through your ass....

... The above argument is a proof ...

... Do I need to write another essay or do you get the point?

What you need is to LEARN some logic. This is the third time I tell you, go to your local University if you want to do philosophy, learn some modal logic, some formal logic for crying out loud, before attempting to make bold claims.

There are countless detailed analysis of the flaws of your pretended logic (it is not an argument simply because it does not follow any logical rules). What you have is some intuitions, why dont you do yourself a favor and learn how to express them properly?

[Orangutan]

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Throg
Originally posted by zaayrdragon
By your own definitions, 'acausal' is meaningless in all cases - which means we cannot define any cause as 'acausal' either. A primal-cause cannot come from nothing... unless that cause is, itself, infinite. Since an infinite thing must also be singular - nothing could possibly exist beyond an infinite thing - then, by prior definition, any so-called 'primal-cause' must, by definition, be 'existence'

Impeccably argued. The rest of your post was exceptionally well argued, too but I found this singularly well argued.
Impeccably argued? It's tripe and I'll explain why it's tripe...

By your own definitions, 'acausal' is meaningless in all cases

No, by my definitions, acausal is meaningless in all cases but one - the primal-cause of [perceived] events/effects.

- which means we cannot define any cause as 'acausal' either

Which means no such thing.

A primal-cause cannot come from nothing

A primal-cause is not an effect. It doesn't come into existence. It's always existed.

Since an infinite thing must also be singular

Existence is definite, not conceptual. I.e., there are no existing infinities. Infinity is merely a potential.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
This is the third time I tell you
*Abandons everything to do as the halfwit tells him.*

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Impeccably argued? It's tripe and I'll explain why it's tripe...In addition to logic, you could also stand to spend some time learning the difference between "explination" and "re-assertion", although I suppose latter will follow from the former.

eta: My appologies. Upon rereading your response, I see that it isn't even "re-assertion" but merely "contradiciton". Your "explination" consists of "nuh-uh".

No, by my definitions, acausal is meaningless in all cases but one - the primal-cause of [perceived] events/effects.special pleading

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by lifegazer
*Abandons everything to do as the halfwit tells him.*

Lets see, I didnt criticize your ideas, nor I made fun of you. I just told you that your logic is very weak, and pointed you to where and how you can improve your argumentations...

And I deserved an insult?

Is this how you pretend to enlighten others?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Is this how you pretend to enlighten others?

Yes, unfortunately it is. :rolleyes:

You haven't even earned a "plonker" from him yet.

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
(1) Experience cannot arise from absolutely nothing.
(snip)
The above argument is a proof that there must be some real/definite cause for every effect.
(snip)...perception is an effect.

In other words - perception is an effect and there is a real/definite cause for every effect then .....
there is a real/definite cause for every one of our perceptions...
... we are perceiving reality!

Let me put it this way. I perceive a tree and I am God perceiving the illusion of a tree. But I see shapes, colours, textures and since something cannot come from nothing then the information contained in these perceptions must exist somewhere in reality. So I am perceiving reality as well as illusion.

But the real information behind the tree illusion must be complete enough to account for any detailed investigation of the tree, such as putting parts of it under an electron microscope, chemical analysis etc.

So behind every tree illusion there must be some real information equivalent to a complete tree - in effect God must have created a real tree to back up the illusion - something cannot come from nothing.

What is true of the tree must also be true of the human brain - real information equivalent to each human brain must exist in reality.

The same obviously goes for all experiences, behind each possible experience that anyone can have there must be some real detailed information created, in other words God has created a real universe in order to supply information for the illusory universe.

In fact if God can create any illusion and something cannot come from nothing then God must be able to create any reality.

Since God is boundless and infinity is never full then there is of course no logical objection to God creating reality.

But if God can, by lifegazers insistence, create any reality then why does he bother with the illusion, beyond sheer perversity?

[c4ts]

Except that there is such a thing as "nothing," we know because you consistently contribute volumes of it to the intellectual community.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Lets see, I didnt criticize your ideas, nor I made fun of you. I just told you that your logic is very weak, and pointed you to where and how you can improve your argumentations...

And I deserved an insult?

Is this how you pretend to enlighten others?
Listen plonker, you are in no position to judge my logic as "very weak". I mean, logic doesn't get much weaker than the thing you contributed on page 1 of my other thread:
"What about this, what bends and warps is gravity itself, no "the space" because its nothing, it is the inexistence. The only property of space is that "its not there"."

When somebody who comes out with garbage like this embarks upon persistent criticism of my logic and has the gall to advise me what to do, he deserves a rollocking. You shouldn't even be participating in these threads because you lack the intelligence to do so.
Moreover, being a buddhist, insults shouldn't hurt you. You need to shelve your pride matey. When you've had as many insults as me they hardly bother you any more. So I'm going to do you a favour and insult you as much as I can - that way, your egotistical reaction to insult will diminish and I will be doing you and your idol (mister Budda) a favour by teaching you a spiritual lesson that you obviously haven't yet learnt.
Understand bozo? Now, clear off.

[H'ethetheth]

Lifegazer, I would like you to comment on this, if you would be so kind.
Originally posted by lifegazer
(1) Experience cannot arise from absolutely nothing.
To which I replied:
You "know" that nothing can come from nothing only because you have never seen anything come from nothing. Only your experiences have led you to believe that nothing can come from nothing. However, if your experiences turn out to be a freak coincidence of uncaused random experiences, they have inadvertently led you to believe the exact opposite of what is true.
How did you get to know that something cannot come from nothing?
And when you say: A primal-cause is not an effect. It doesn't come into existence. It's always existed. Why do you think there is only one thing that has always existed?
How do you know your experiences haven't always existed but just wait until they assert themselves?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Lifegazer, I would like you to comment on this, if you would be so kind.

I thought you was bored of discussion with me? Nothing on the telly?

How did you get to know that something cannot come from nothing?

There is (emphasis on this word - think about it) not nothing.
There is existence and effects/events that are perceived within this existence are dependent upon that existence. Those effects/events occuring within perceived-spacetime require the prior existence of a perceiver - awareness.
An abstract sensation cannot occur unless 'awareness' exists.
And since there is no nothing, we cannot say that those sensations emanated from 'nothing'. They must emanate from existence itself.

Why do you think there is only one thing that has always existed?

Because a primal-cause must exist.

How do you know your experiences haven't always existed but just wait until they assert themselves?
Are you advocating the fact that thoughts/emotions/sensations are sentient beings that all co-operate to form the order I perceive within myself?
Strange question.

[Throg]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is existence

There is existence? Existence exists? Does the existence of existence exist? Does the ... oh, forget it.


Look, it is a complicated position you are trying to explain. If you want to have any chance of explaining it, or even understanding it you need to take great care at every step in your argument. If you want anyone to take your explanation seriously you need to take great care and avoid throwing childish insults at people when they disagree with you. If you don't want any of these things, then why bother posting in the first place?

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I thought you was bored of discussion with me? Nothing on the telly?No, I've had it with my control theory books. :)

There is (emphasis on this word - think about it) not nothing.
There is existence and effects/events that are perceived within this existence are dependent upon that existence. Those effects/events occuring within perceived-spacetime require the prior existence of a perceiver - awareness.
An abstract sensation cannot occur unless 'awareness' exists.
And since there is no nothing, we cannot say that those sensations emanated from 'nothing'. They must emanate from existence itself.Let me rephrase: Assume that at one moment the sensations did not exist, and the next moment they did. I guess you're right in saying that they then didn't emanate from nothing, but let's say in stead that nothing caused them to exist.

Because a primal-cause must exist. Fine, but that's not what I asked. How do you know there is only one of them?

Are you advocating the fact that thoughts/emotions/sensations are sentient beings that all co-operate to form the order I perceive within myself?
Strange question. Strange indeed, and I might indeed advocate this. Can you disprove it? Anyway, their sentience or lack thereof is beside the point. One might also think of some kind of automatic 'tape' that rewinds every "lifegazer lifetime" including all your memories, so that you experience your life over and over. Could this not have been going on since the beginning of time? This would be a consistent way of having uncaused sensations.
The point being, you cannot know what an experience is, or whether it exists or not while you're not experiencing it. Nor can you know whether their existence was caused in the first place.
- If they are caused, a first cause must either exist, or have existed, which can mean any number of things, one of which is a consistent version of your theory. Another one is a real physical world.
- If they're not, then your theory (and the physical world) goes belly-up completely and immediately.

The question is still: Do you agree your theory is possibly not an accurate representation of the ultimate truth?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Listen plonker, you are in no position to judge my logic as "very weak". I mean, logic doesn't get much weaker than the thing you contributed on page 1 of my other thread:
"What about this, what bends and warps is gravity itself, no "the space" because its nothing, it is the inexistence. The only property of space is that "its not there"."

When somebody who comes out with garbage like this embarks upon persistent criticism of my logic and has the gall to advise me what to do, he deserves a rollocking. You shouldn't even be participating in these threads because you lack the intelligence to do so.
Moreover, being a buddhist, insults shouldn't hurt you. You need to shelve your pride matey. When you've had as many insults as me they hardly bother you any more. So I'm going to do you a favour and insult you as much as I can - that way, your egotistical reaction to insult will diminish and I will be doing you and your idol (mister Budda) a favour by teaching you a spiritual lesson that you obviously haven't yet learnt.
Understand bozo? Now, clear off.

A few quotes that come to mind after reading this post.

Name calling and labeling: Extremists are quick to
resort to epithets (liar, Nazi, fabian, et al.) to label and
condemn opponents in order to divert attention from their
arguments and to discourage others from hearing them
out.''

This was taken from the book by John George and Laird
Wilcox titled ''American Extremists'' ISBN 1-57392-058-4
copyright 1996.

It was found under the sub-heading of "The Traits of
"Extremists"p.56.





"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Pascal

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer


Because a primal-cause must exist.



Then a primal-cause must exist for EVERYTHING. Thus a God "creator" needs a creator, needs a creator, needs a creator and so on.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Because a primal-cause must exist.


Why must a primal cause exist?

Oh, right, because, otherwise, your precious pet theory is meaningless. OK, try this question: what proof do you have that a primal cause exists?

And did you not state, "Next time you use the word 'nothing' as an explanation for anything, realise that you are talking through your ass"?

So... what causes a Primal Cause?

Uh uh uh - can't use that 'nothing' word, my friend.

Arguably, though, to play Idiot's Advocate for a moment, there may well have existed causes that were themselves uncaused. However, clearly there had to be more than one for any causation to occur... which would infer a primal cause could not be singular!

This is extremely important to understand: All effects throughout reality must be caused by two or more causes interacting in some manner. Causation absolutely cannot arise from a singular cause! Hence, if there exist Primal Causes which are acausal, there must exist more than one - two, at a bare minimum - and it is highly likely that they cease existing as Primal Causes at the moment of interaction and causation.

At any rate, saying that there exists a (some) Primal-Cause that is Eternal/Infinite is no better or worse than claiming that there exists an infinite chain of causal effect/causes. Either way, something has always existed... and more than one thing, at that.

[Dan Beaird]

Forgive me, but I think I may just show my denseness at this point...please correct me wherever I step off into woo land:

The way I see it, the Big Bang (or a similar universal kick-start of some sort) is the absolute earliest limit of our ability to perceive events, the point where spacetime begins. Is this correct?

It seems reasonable to me to assume that something or series of things happened to cause the big bang, but since these will have occured outside spacetime they are beyond our ability to see. Therefore it seems reasonable to accept that there is a cause for the universe, but unreasonable to believe there can every be any scientific knowledge establishing that cause. It exists outside the realm of reason and logical explanation.

Okay, go ahead and poke holes in that all you want, but from my point of view there's no reason for LG to even try to explain the unexplainable. There can be no basis for the knowledge short of divine reveleation and that requires nothing short of blind faith to believe.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird
It seems reasonable to me to assume that something or series of things happened to cause the big bang, but since these will have occured outside spacetime they are beyond our ability to see. It seems reasonable, yes. But you have to ask: what does it mean to be "outside" spacetime? The reasonableness breaks down at that point.
Therefore it seems reasonable to accept that there is a cause for the universe, but unreasonable to believe there can every be any scientific knowledge establishing that cause. It exists outside the realm of reason and logical explanation.There is a cause for the universe, but it can be (and probably has been) reasoned out through scientific method.

The current best theory is quantum fluctuation followed by cosmic inflation. It's a long way from man-on-the-street reasonable, but it is reasonable nonetheless.
Okay, go ahead and poke holes in that all you want, Sorry :D

[Robin]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird
Forgive me, but I think I may just show my denseness at this point...please correct me wherever I step off into woo land:
I think everyone but a handful of extremely brainy physicists will show denseness on this point so there is no need for us to worry about it.
The way I see it, the Big Bang (or a similar universal kick-start of some sort) is the absolute earliest limit of our ability to perceive events, the point where spacetime begins. Is this correct?

It seems reasonable to me to assume that something or series of things happened to cause the big bang, but since these will have occured outside spacetime they are beyond our ability to see. Therefore it seems reasonable to accept that there is a cause for the universe, but unreasonable to believe there can every be any scientific knowledge establishing that cause. It exists outside the realm of reason and logical explanation.
I am no expert but I believe that 'M Theory' posits events that caused the beginning of our universe. It appears to suggest that spacetime does exist outside our universe and is 10 or 11 dimensional but that most dimensions behave in a really weird way and that our universe might have begun with the 'collision' of two other universes.

Just how reasonable this all is I am in no position to tell and I take no responsibility for how well I have represented it, but it does show that science does not regard the big bang as some sort of limit to understanding of reality.

Perhaps someone else can fix my botched summary of M Theory.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird
The way I see it, the Big Bang (or a similar universal kick-start of some sort) is the absolute earliest limit of our ability to perceive events, the point where spacetime begins. Is this correct?

No.
All scientific conclusions are founded upon or verified by perceived events.
We can only observe the perceived world - not the reality of a world. In other words, we can only observe the world "painted" upon the fabric of our awareness where the paint is the experience of a sensation.
No man has ever observed the/a real world.

Now, as a fact, I can tell you that the perception of a world didn't begin with an explosion. And since we can observe no other world, the question begs where this knowledge comes from. Actually, I'm aware from whence it comes: Doppler redshift.
However, "tired-light" theories now abound which oppose the idea that the [perceived] universe is expanding.
Also, the awareness (even through machinary) of background microwave-radiation only tells us about the world we perceive.

So, the bottom line is that Scientists cannot prove that a real world exists and still don't know for sure whether the perceived-world appears to be expanding.
When people say that the universe started with a big-bang, they are of course refering to the real universe - which nobody has proof of and which, therefore, they assume exists. Further, when they cannot even be sure that the perceived-world is expanding, I think we can take such theories with a grain of salt.
In other words, "The universe started with a big bang" has absolutely zero philosophical merit.

Okay, go ahead and poke holes in that all you want, but from my point of view there's no reason for LG to even try to explain the unexplainable. There can be no basis for the knowledge short of divine reveleation and that requires nothing short of blind faith to believe.
Being the abode and experiencer of the perceived world, I - whatever it is that I am - do not think that I am unexplainable.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Being the abode and experiencer of the perceived world, I - whatever it is that I am - do not think that I am unexplainable.
I've been looking for a new sig. I thank you.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
No.

No man has ever observed the/a real world.


However, "tired-light" theories now abound which oppose the idea that the [perceived] universe is expanding.

You have been corrected on this before. "Tired light" theories do not "abound".


So, the bottom line is that Scientists cannot prove that a real world exists and still don't know for sure whether the perceived-world appears to be expanding.


So yet again, I ask, if there is no real world beyond my perception why were you hysterical about me posting your surname?

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
We can only observe the perceived world - not the reality of a world.
But ...
Also posted by lifegazer
The above argument is a proof that there must be some real/definite cause for every effect.
and ...
Also posted by lifegazer
... perception is an effect.
So if every perception is an effect and every effect has some real/definite cause then every perception must have some real/definite cause. Thus we perceive reality.

If we are not perceiving reality then our perceptions do not have a real/definite cause, which contradicts your OP.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
You have been corrected on this before. "Tired light" theories do not "abound".

They're certainly not favoured but there's plenty of talk about them. You might find these sites interesting:
http://www.lyndonashmore.com/
http://www.eitgaastra.nl/timesgr/part1/2.html

Of course, the main part of my post was that the knowledge we glean relates to the perceived world, so that even if tired-light theories are wrong, the most we can say is that the perceived universe appears to be expanding within awareness.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings lifegazer.

Can you define "real world"?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Greetings lifegazer.

Can you define "real world"?
A bit difficult since I have no knowledge of such a place. However, it would be the world that exists apart from and beyond the awareness of one.
The experience/awareness of a thing is not the same as the reality of a thing. In other words, perception is distinct from the thing being perceived - if indeed there is a 'thing' beyond the perception of one.

The universe you experience/sense is embraced by your being.
The universe which you think is real necessarily must exist outside and apart from your being.

Again, I say that nobody has ever observed a real world... and that, consequently, all scientific knowledge relates to the order of the perceived-world.
Science needs a revolution to account for this fact, but whilst the sort of mindset I witness here (burn the witches!) exists, it aint going to happen. At least, not for a while.

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Again, I say that nobody has ever observed a real world... and that, consequently, all scientific knowledge relates to the order of the perceived-world.
And again I say that by your own theory every perception has a real/definite cause. It is the same assumption that scientists make.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
They're certainly not favoured but there's plenty of talk about them. You might find these sites interesting:
http://www.lyndonashmore.com/
http://www.eitgaastra.nl/timesgr/part1/2.html

Of course, the main part of my post was that the knowledge we glean relates to the perceived world, so that even if tired-light theories are wrong, the most we can say is that the perceived universe appears to be expanding within awareness.

2 is not abounding.

Any you ignored my question yet again. Why does that question pose you so much difficulty?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
A bit difficult since I have no knowledge of such a place.

yet you write Originally posted by lifegazer
No.

No man has ever observed the/a real world.

How do you know there is such a thing? Or is this a belief only and not something you are stating is a fact?

And can you be sure no man has ever observed the/a real world? Do you know every human who ever lived?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
(3) If existence is indivisible, then it is absolutely singular. No explanation needed.


I expained this before, if you can seperate existence into two seperate things, then its really just a property of an existence where you can seperate two things that you before defined existence.

In fact, just as you attempt to prove here that the word "nothing" is meaningless when talking about existence, so is the word "divisible".


(4) If existence is indivisible, then it is boundless. Why? Because a singular existence cannot be bounded by something else (contradicts the prior conclusion)... and 'nothing' is incapable of embracing (extending itself around) any finite entity.


See above, anything embracing what you previously defined as existence, would now be part of your new definition of existence.

However, it is easy to define something finite that does not need to be bounded, you just need to ensure that your definition of that finite entity does not refer in anyway to "outside" the entity. This matches our current definition of the a boundless, but finite universe.

Remember, distance is not the only way to bound an entity. In fact, it is ok for the properties of the universe to be bounded. For instance, the energy levels that electrons can occupy around a proton are bounded to descrete states.

The problem with the type boundry you are talking about is where you can define a valid event that somehow contridicts itself. In the case where the universe just stops, it is travel beyond space.

You have to break these questions down into mathematical ones about properties. Distance does not have some special, magical place when talking about properties of existence, neither does time. Historically though, they have held a very special place for philosophers.


Anybody who procalims that an effect can come from 'nothing' is a philosophical bozo.


And you are saying that every cause has an effect, and every effect has an cause, right?


The above argument is a proof that there must be some real/definite cause for every effect.


(1). Every effect has a cause

ok, where does a cause come from? Can you have an acausual cause? A cause that occurs for no reason?


Which means that acausality cannot be applied with regards ANY effect. Which means that it can only be applied with regards a PRIMAL-CAUSE.


You mean a cause that occurs for no reason. So you are saying that:

(2). Not every cause exists because of an effect.

so if cause (a) does not exist as a result of an effect, and it creates effect (b). Effect (b) has come into existence for what reason? Cause (a). Why does cause (a) exist? Do causes just exist all the time for no reason?


Btw, a primal-cause cannot be perceived since perception is an effect.


You just said every effect has a cause. If perception is an effect, it has a cause, why are you saying that cause cannot be the "primal-cause"

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Listen plonker, you are in no position to judge my logic as "very weak". I mean, logic doesn't get much weaker than the thing you contributed on page 1 of my other thread:
"What about this, what bends and warps is gravity itself, no "the space" because its nothing, it is the inexistence. The only property of space is that "its not there"."

When somebody who comes out with garbage like this embarks upon persistent criticism of my logic and has the gall to advise me what to do, he deserves a rollocking. You shouldn't even be participating in these threads because you lack the intelligence to do so.
Moreover, being a buddhist, insults shouldn't hurt you. You need to shelve your pride matey. When you've had as many insults as me they hardly bother you any more. So I'm going to do you a favour and insult you as much as I can - that way, your egotistical reaction to insult will diminish and I will be doing you and your idol (mister Budda) a favour by teaching you a spiritual lesson that you obviously haven't yet learnt.
Understand bozo? Now, clear off.

You are really a case. By your need to use insulting words you are only showing your absolute inability to argue. Either one believes you or one becomes a "bozo" or a "plonker". Right.

The saddest part is that you believe yourself to be "the greatest genius alive", one who is trying to show us, poor retarded humans, about the grandiosity of your "philosophy".

For crying out loud, I used exactly the kind of weak arguments that you use, and I told you thats what I was doing!!!

Now I understand perfectly why people in here is so harsh to you. You deserve zero respect. Let me state this again "bozo" :D , whether you like it or not, wheter you realize it or not, your "logic" is laughable. Sorry.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Throg
There is existence? Existence exists? Does the existence of existence exist? Does the ... oh, forget it.


Look, it is a complicated position you are trying to explain. If you want to have any chance of explaining it, or even understanding it you need to take great care at every step in your argument. If you want anyone to take your explanation seriously you need to take great care and avoid throwing childish insults at people when they disagree with you. If you don't want any of these things, then why bother posting in the first place?

Exactly! ;)

[Dan Beaird]

Originally posted by Robin
I think everyone but a handful of extremely brainy physicists will show denseness on this point so there is no need for us to worry about it....

Thanks Robin, and you too Upchurch. I appreciate the response, this is really a fuzzy area for me.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that seemingly there will always be an area that is outside our knowledge, the place where the God of the Gaps does all his dirty work. No matter how much we discover there is still a place where the religious can tell us that God put in his one 6 day work week out of all eternity.

Thanks again

[Dan Beaird]

Originally posted by lifegazer
No.
All scientific conclusions are founded upon or verified by perceived events.
We can only observe the perceived world - not the reality of a world. In other words, we can only observe the world "painted" upon the fabric of our awareness where the paint is the experience of a sensation.
I really wasn't trying to start another conversation with you LG. I was actually trying to understand an area that is not particularly clear to me. High school physics for me was mostly simple laws of motion kind of stuff and never got into universal origins and I haven't had much interest in reading up on the latest developments.

Anyway, nobody argues that we perceive things through our senses, this is no news.

No man has ever observed the/a real world.
This assumes that the senses somehow falsely report the presence of a universe with amazing consistancy which matches closely to the observations of others. The senses are the inputs to the brain, we have no other tools capable of pereception. In absence of any concrete evidence which proves that they are providing made-up information it is probably best that I go on muddling through life under the assumption that the universe is real and that I might get a real steak to eat for dinner tonight.


...(removal of meaningless drivel)
So, the bottom line is that Scientists cannot prove that a real world exists and still don't know for sure whether the perceived-world appears to be expanding...

Scientists have sufficient proof that a real world exists without getting bogged down by sloppy philosophical sophistry that would be laughed out of any undergraduate philosophy 101 class.


Being the abode and experiencer of the perceived world, I - whatever it is that I am - do not think that I am unexplainable.
You are not unexplainable, you simply don't have the ability to do any of the explaining.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird
Thanks Robin, and you too Upchurch. I appreciate the response, this is really a fuzzy area for me.Hey, Robin wasn't kidding. The universe (or "reality", if you prefer) is a very complicated place and the majority of scientists do a poor job of disseminating what we do know out into the general public.

I imagine that every time there is a revolution in scientific understanding, it takes a while to its way into common understanding. (Hell, how long did the Catholic Church hold on to the geocentric model?) We aren't even a hundred years into the Relativity/Quantum revolution.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that seemingly there will always be an area that is outside our knowledge, the place where the God of the Gaps does all his dirty work. No matter how much we discover there is still a place where the religious can tell us that God put in his one 6 day work week out of all eternity.I conceed that there are limits to what we can know (damn you, Heisenberg!), but I see no reason to think there is ultimately a limit to what we can understand. It's a fine line, but an important one, I think.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by lifegazer
In other words, 'nothing' has no meaning. It's a false concept.

'Nothing' no longer has ANY meaning. It's just a concept that exists within our minds. But it has no philosophical significance with regards to existence or reality or causality.
Anybody who procalims that an effect can come from 'nothing' is a philosophical bozo.

*Filip grabs the bait!!* :D

Even though such a concept as NOTHING may in itself seem meaningless (as we automatically attribute certain kinds of qualties to it and the 'it' isn't supposed to even exist), I would argue that the idea is philosophically very useful. It's useful because beyond the literal meaning there lies another, perhaps more "philosophical" meaning in my opinion. Obviously we had to get the idea from somewhere!

Does anyone think that our basic 'every day' understanding of nothing extends into some subtle aspect of actual reality or is it merely a concept based on memetics? In other words, does the idea of real nothingness somehow fit into reality? Why is it that I can almost 'see' nothingness in my mind's eye if there is no substance behind what I'm trying to 'see'?

If you close your eyes and think of nothing (as you see it), does it come out as a literal definition in your mind? A mental image... or a feeling? What do you think of when you think of nothing?

Curious to see what the replies are... :rolleyes:

[uruk]

All scientific conclusions are founded upon or verified by perceived events.
We can only observe the perceived world - not the reality of a world. In other words, we can only observe the world "painted" upon the fabric of our awareness where the paint is the experience of a sensation.
No man has ever observed the/a real world.

This says nothing about the source of the information from which the sensory "paint" is derived from. All thids says that we form a mental picture of a world. It is interesting to note that the machines we use to make observation do so of things that we cannot directly sense or observe with our own senses. How do you explain that?

A bit difficult since I have no knowledge of such a place. However, it would be the world that exists apart from and beyond the awareness of one.
The experience/awareness of a thing is not the same as the reality of a thing. In other words, perception is distinct from the thing being perceived - if indeed there is a 'thing' beyond the perception of one.

The world which exists apart from our awarness of one is a very plausible source of the information from which our sensory "paint" is derived. In which case our perceptions would of an external world would be as accurate as our senses are.
The universe you experience/sense is embraced by your being.
The universe which you think is real necessarily must exist outside and apart from your being.

The mental picture we have in our minds would be derived from the information this world provides to our senses.

Again, I say that nobody has ever observed a real world... and that, consequently, all scientific knowledge relates to the order of the perceived-world.
Science needs a revolution to account for this fact, but whilst the sort of mindset I witness here (burn the witches!) exists, it aint going to happen. At least, not for a while.

This would not true in any sense. Our "painted" observation would be the observation of a real world.

Our perceptions built from sensory information provided by this world would tell us of the rules of which this world obeys. The scientific knowlege would then be our perceptual observations of the rules of which the world operates.

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer
They're certainly not favoured but there's plenty of talk about them. You might find these sites interesting:
http://www.lyndonashmore.com/
http://www.eitgaastra.nl/timesgr/part1/2.html

Of course, the main part of my post was that the knowledge we glean relates to the perceived world, so that even if tired-light theories are wrong, the most we can say is that the perceived universe appears to be expanding within awareness. Well Lyndon Ashmore appears to have no qualifications or training in cosmology physics or astrophysics, and the number of errors and misconceptions on his site are staggering (for a start he's using an incorrect value for the Hubble constant, which is central to his theory). Eit Gaastra is a chemical engineer who gave that up to write novels and got interested in cosmology, and his website is also full of some stunning errors (he seems to think that white dwarfs are smaller than pulsars!?). So they should know exactly what they're talking about when it comes to cosmology and astrophysics! :rolleyes:

The idea of an expanding Universe was predicted by Einstein (of whom you have lately become so fond) long before Hubble discovered the recession of the galaxies. Universal expansion is experimentally confirmed by several independent means, many of which were predicted before their discovery.

You are correct in one respect science cannot prove that the external Universe exists. However, if you want to engage in discussion about the laws of physics then you have to accept that all of the reliable data points very strongly towards the idea that the Universe began 13.7 billion years ago in a massive explosion.

[uruk]

In other words, "The universe started with a big bang" has absolutely zero philosophical merit.
Who ever said the universe had to follow any of our silly notions?
Oh wait, all you wags who claim the universe is here for our benefit.
And philosophy is only good for a lively debate. It makes no difference to the realities of our day to day. (Unless of course your a loon on a crusade or trying to get published)

[P.S.A.]

As I shall now try to limit myself to doing, I will respond only by pointing to this thread I have started here;

Lifegazer; should we simply ignore him?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54736

[Dan Beaird]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Hey, Robin wasn't kidding. The universe (or "reality", if you prefer) is a very complicated place and the majority of scientists do a poor job of disseminating what we do know out into the general public.
...
I conceed that there are limits to what we can know (damn you, Heisenberg!), but I see no reason to think there is ultimately a limit to what we can understand. It's a fine line, but an important one, I think.

I spent a little time this morning looking up M theory, which also required that I read up a bit on string theory and the way that all of this ties back in to Newton and Einstein. I freely admit that the maths were way beyond my level, but I got a general understanding of what they were talking about. Essentially how our understanding is being continually refined and the assorted theoretical models eventually coalesce into unifying theories as the discrepencies between them are resolved (naturally enough resulting in new problems). I have a better appreciation for the kind of dedication and intellect required to advance knowledge.

I fully agree with your comment on the difference between knowledge and understanding, it is indeed an important point.

Thanks again

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Ok, lets dissect this, it will take just three easy steps to prove your pitiful logical skills:

Originally posted by lifegazer
(1) Experience cannot arise from absolutely nothing.

This could be a corollary of "experience arise from something", it is a badly designed first premise.

Originally posted by lifegazer
(2) Therefore, Something exists - as opposed to 'nothing'.

This is not a conclusion, but a tautology, because it is implied in 1)

Originally posted by lifegazer
(3) If existence is indivisible, then it is absolutely singular. No explanation needed.

There is no logical continuity between 1) and 2) with 3) you introduce, from nowhere, the "indivisible" and "singular" concepts. If anything, you should first present your arguments (premises and conclusion) about why is it "indivisible".

Thats enough. It is not worth my time to continue because, as every body knows, you dont want to learn, you just want us to be amazed at your "superior intellect".

[Throg]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird
[B]
Anyway, nobody argues that we perceive things through our senses, this is no news.


I had a Philosophy tutor who did actually "argue" that we had direct experience of the Universe indpendent of any perceptual apparatus and he is not unique in adopting this position. I put the quotation marks around the word argue because none of his arguments conformed to my understanding of the word "argument." He seemed, otherwise, a completely rational man.

I agree with everything else in your post, I just raise this as an example of the fact that you can always find some people who will "argue" any position.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor


*Filip grabs the bait!!* :D

Even though such a concept as NOTHING may in itself seem meaningless (as we automatically attribute certain kinds of qualties to it and the 'it' isn't supposed to even exist), I would argue that the idea is philosophically very useful. It's useful because beyond the literal meaning there lies another, perhaps more "philosophical" meaning in my opinion. Obviously we had to get the idea from somewhere!

Does anyone think that our basic 'every day' understanding of nothing extends into some subtle aspect of actual reality or is it merely a concept based on memetics? In other words, does the idea of real nothingness somehow fit into reality? Why is it that I can almost 'see' nothingness in my mind's eye if there is no substance behind what I'm trying to 'see'?

If you close your eyes and think of nothing (as you see it), does it come out as a literal definition in your mind? A mental image... or a feeling? What do you think of when you think of nothing?

Curious to see what the replies are... :rolleyes: [/B]

It seems to me that all of these examples rely on an appeal to intuition. I think that this is essentially what Sartre did, at much greater length in "Being and Nothingness." If you haven't read it, I can highly recommend it given your interest. From my point of view, it said nothing about reality but quite a lot about phenomenology.

As to why there seems to be a being to nothingness, I would suggest this is an artefact of the way our perceptions are processed at a neurological level. There are structures in the retina and in the visual cortex that respond to differences in patterns of light such that difference can seem to be a thing in itself rather than a comparison between things. This occurs at such a fundamental level of perceptual processing that it should not be surprising that we find strong intuitive appeal in the idea that the difference between the presence of something and the absence of something implies and can produce the sensation of the presence of nothingness.