10 Great Questions of Philosophy

So if one does not see why there must be a point to all of this, they aren't thinking at all?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No..if someone chooses not to think something, then they are choosing not to think. I would've thought that'd be obvious..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I stand by my more than obvious observation. There's not a thing that has come into existence that has not required energy to do so. Even to just become matter requires tying up huge amounts of energy in that form, E being = to mc2.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why is there something instead of nothing ?

.. although, even a state of perfect tranquil nothingness .. is something, isn't it ?

Can your mind, my mind, any mind, really grasp this question ? During moments of contemplation I approach even small a degree of understanding this question (let alone any degree of answering it) and am struck with an inward .. terror .. no, terror isn't right .. an inward shock .. as though I'm about to fall into some abyss.

A couple of years ago, at physicsforums, before they reached the depths of anal retention they now enjoy, there was thread on this very question. It went on for dozens of pages .. the greatest philosophers, scientists, theorists .. zip .. nadda ..

 

Both Leibniz and Heidegger asked that question. Leibniz copped out and used it to prove the existence of God. Heidegger was more insightful. He said it deserves to be the most important question in philosophy because it broaches the issue of Being itself and what it is. Trying to answer it we are almost awakened anew to the extraordinary presence of being itself, a being which is nonetheless contingent and transient at its core.

 

Your phrasing makes it anything but obvious. So you aren't suggesting that people who disagree with you on this matter aren't simpletons who don't use their heads?

 

Nope..just that someone who says they choose not to think something are choosing not to think.

 

Yep - even a hint of comprehending the enormity of the question is a mind spin, IMO.

 

I have two problems with this explanation.

1) It's pointless as stated.

2) It's not really what you said. Sarkus took issue with your comment about how people must think there is a point to existence. Here is what followed:00000

So, really, it appears to be nothing more than a snipe. You're saying that people who don't share your view aren't thinking at all. Instead of the correct answer, which is that people who don't share your opinion have perfectly valid reasons for believing otherwise.

Shame on you. And double shame on you for not owning up to it.

 

Pulling out the heavy guns I see

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yet the universe possibly has zero net energy, and you previously dismissed talk of merely localised negative entropy requiring energy. You're jumping to unwarranted assumptions that it must have taken energy.

And yet if the universe has NET ZERO ENERGY, how much energy does it have? Oh, yes... ZERO. How much energy does it take to create zero energy?
Again, you dismissed talk of merely localised negative entropy but wanted to talk about the creation of the universe itself.
So, again, why do you think something with net zero energy would take a lot of energy to emerge from nothingness?
It had zero energy, has zero energy, will have zero energy.

Exactly: you're a priori assuming a state of nothing from which the universe sprang, and asking the question of why/how? One issue is whether that assumption is valid, and if not it makes the question moot. So answer that question, of whether "nothing" was the state from which the universe sprang, and then move on from there.

It's not a forte - I've never achieved it. What you're confusing it with is mere disagreement with you.
Now, if you want to actually construct coherent arguments, that does not dismiss a matter and then subsequently relies on that matter, it might serve you better.
But heck, maybe that's the limit of your supposed "thinking".

 

Bear in mind that in another thread, he accused you of being religious ...

 

Seriously?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I must have missed that, or more likely just forgotten

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sorry, I just don't buy your thesis that there is zero energy in the universe. We see energy everywhere. Obviously it must have sprung into existence at some point. Here is even an estimate for how much energy was created by the Big Bang: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_energy_is_created_by_the_big_bang

So as it stands, it takes energy for things to come into existence. Always has and always will. I leave it to you to endlessly hairsplit over the meaning of terms "deep", "net energy", and "thinking".

 

You missed it because it never happened.

 

OMG..the DOUBLE shame ruler slap! Is this where I say 50 hail mary's while donning a sackcloth robe?

 

If you only look at one side of the balance then you will always only see half of the issue. Maybe you want to think about considering the other half, 'cos your comments on the matter so far reveal a distinct lack of thinking.
I would suggest you invest in a bit of research regarding the flat universe and/or zero-energy universe.

As it stands, things won't change regardless of whether one or other of us is correct: reality is not dependent upon knowledge.
And as it stands, what you think is demonstrably less important the more ignorance you continue to display.

 

The zero-energy hypothesis requires a rather loose interpretation of the term "energy". As Wikipedia says: "The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. The amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by the negative energy in the form of gravity." Is gravity really "negative energy"? Maybe if you're Lawrence Krauss needing to sell a book it is. From my pov gravity unleashes quite a bit of energy from matter. Stars are vibrant examples of this process.

 

Gravity doesn't release energy that is not already present in the rest-mass of the object. All gravity does in such situations is help transfer some of that positive energy of the star from one state to another, but the gravitational potential energy still balances it out.
Is gravity really "negative energy"? No... it is not gravity itself that balances the positive energy, but the gravitational potential energy of a body within a gravitational field.
And, at a simple level, the sum of this negative energy (gravitational potential energy is zero when infinitely far from the source of the gravitational field, so any closer than that means the energy is negative) balances the sum of the positive energy in the universe.
Hence the universe having zero energy.
Or so the calculations that Krauss and others seem to suggest.

But hey, since when does science stand in the way of a good philosophical discussion based on one person saying "this is the way it is!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!