Ex-Nihilo

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Prince_James, Feb 4, 2007.

  1. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Continuing from the thread "The need to accept irrationality and illogicality":

    Quantum Quack:

    To say that an effect can be caused in the same moment as the cause, is to affirm an absurdity on account of the fact that this necessitates one point of space to do two completely opposite things at once. As this is clearly an impossibility without an added increment of time (that is - two moments instead of one) we are left with nothing.

    I fail to see how this would truly change anything? Moreover, when we say "I went to the movies with no body", are not we affirming the same thing as if we said "I went to the movies with nothingness"? That is to say, whenever we discuss doing anything "with" nothingness, we are affirming a lack, and thus no relationship whatsoever?

    It takes two to tango and nothingness is not a proper dance partner.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Other objections to the ex nihilio:

    As nothingness is the opposite of somethingness, it must contrast in every way with somethingness. Accordingly, this implies that causal powers are absent, as they are present in existence. Naturally, that which has no causal power cannot cause. Ergo, nothingness cannot cause.

    With the above taking into account, we must also claim that nothingness is necessarily chaotic, as existence is ordered. Therefore, it is impossible for nothingness to be a cause, for pure chaos cannot even be ordered for the moment it takes to cause.

    If existence is created from nothingness, this implies that existence wasn't necessary. For if it isn't necessary, then its creation is arbitrary. And if it is arbitrary, what does this leave us philosophically?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    all tough question PJ....take some time to respond.....

    A list of quick concerns about your post:

    1] I would dispute that nothingness can be opposite to anything as in the mix of context used nothign ness is no-existent thus can not be a pole in a duality. more likely the duality can be seen as a triality...:

    ......n......
    (+)......(-)

    where n= nothingness

    Example:
    Take a bar magnet and we have two poles positive and negative, with ruler find exactly the center of this bar magnet and measure the magnetic attraction using another magnet...what is the value of that magnetic attraction at the center of the bar magnet?

    so we have (+)......n.......(-)
    or
    (+)>>>>>0<<<<<<(-)

    infinitey(+)>>>>>>>0<<<<<<<<(-)infinitey

    2] "If a hammer hits the head of a nail the energy delivered by the hammer transfers to the nail at what point in time. During the transfer [ instantaneous] or after the transfer sequential. If at any time you take a snap shot of the transfer in progress what time line can you see except a moment snapped as instantaneous.

    So to me cause could be described as underpinning effect rather than preceding effect.

    [ this is not going to be an easy discussion I can assure you ]

    The fallacy of most exnhilo arguments in my opinion is the use of time in the process of describing the questions.

    It is not beneficial to consider nothing existed before something, because "nothing" can not exist. [ no-existant]

    There are at least three ways of looking at this issue I have found, and all are able to support each other......so we have at least three approaches to the subject that all coincide as the universe we experience.

    We can consider a universe with a starting point we can consider a universe that never started and is always starting. We can consider a universe that is only temporally {memory} existant.

    All three positions lead to the same conclusion...IMO

    We do however prefer to look at things as starting and beginning and I sort of think ...hmmmm...well why not.....however once the univers ewas started it can not longer be said to have a beginning.....and thats part of the paradox.... because to say that something has a beginning implies that there was something before.....[ again it is the use of time that makes this issue very difficult to discuss using language that requires temporal considerations.]
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2007
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Quack:

    1. Whereas your position is seductive in terms of magnetic attraction and other physical dualities, it breaks down at the existence-nonexistence level. For in order for it to be right, there must be something less than nothing. Yet how can there be something which is truly less than nothing? Nothing is that which has nothing less than it.

    Certainly, the energy transfers upon hitting. HOwever, the movement of the nail occurs immediatly afterwards. That is to say, there are two moments:

    Hammer hitting nail.

    Nail being driven through the wood.

    AGreed.

    Might you on position two and three?

    How can something later be said to not have a beginning?
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    PJ,
    I am assuming you are referring to the reality of negative values...such as mathematical negatives [ being less than zero....]

    What I see is that there are no true negative values as such. As it is impossible to have less than absolute nothing-ness.

    so the formula
    (+)>>>>>>>>0<<<<<<<<<(-) is not referring to less than zero values. Both the (+) and the (-) are greater than zero.

    as you can see the (+) reduces to zero and then climbs back to (-)

    so we have >0< rather than >0>.

    So in essence both poles of a bar magnet are positive values when referring to absolute nothignness.

    From a perspective of nothingness (+) and (-) values are both positive.

    If you take a picture with a camera of this activity [ hammmer driving nail through wood] what do you see....I would suggest that you see cause and effect simultaneously even though we will superimpose our temporal considerations onto the picture. If we take only the picture without temporal considerations I think you will see what I mean.

    At that infinitely zero moment of time the nail is being driven through the wood by a hammer........remember our discssions about infinitely small moments when added together
    ....[ you held to the notion that they are distinct moments....but I hold to the notion that when adding 2 infinitely small duration events you still are left with one infinitely small duration event. So in this sense cause and effect are simultaneous - (infiniteley small + infiniteley small = infinitely small)]

    ...because "infinitey" is non-reducable or in this case non-increasable value"

    Its a question of perspective.

    When imagining the events from the perspective of nothingness there is a beginning "after" nothingness, but when imagining the events from a perspective of somethingness there is no before time. [ thus time is eternal ]

    Because time is what is created and once time is created there can be no before time....because that would imply that nothingness had time when it can not by definition have time....


    yeah tough I know........

    The biggest question for me and one that has been haunting me for about 12 years is:
    How does Nothing-ness gain the potential to be something?

    The only answer I have come to that even goes close to resolving this question is :

    Nothingness only has the potential if something exists.

    "the potential of one magnet is zero unless there is something for it to be attracted too..."


    From the perspective of somethingness nothingness never existed in the past as there is no before time.....ha...what a convoluted explanation.....oh boy !!! always the case when mixing context of "no-existant nothingness"

    So the only way for nothingness to not exist is for something to exist.

    The usual simultaneous circular logic yes?
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2007
  9. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Quack:

    All agreed. Negative numbers are not truly "less than nothing".

    Yet in admitting this, are you not admitting my point? That existence-nonexistence is not a duality akin to the positive/negative numbers and electromagnetism?

    Not to nitpick, but as this is a legitimate consideration of Zeno's paradoxes: We'd actually not see anything at all from a still-frame photo. THat is ot say, we could not even infer the hammer is properly hitting and not just resting on the head.

    Zeno aside, it would seem to -at least- take two moments for the energy to act upon the nail. One moment to deliever the energy and one moment for its effect to become apparent (the nail being buried into the wood).

    I have to go for a bit, but I shall be back to reply to the rest.
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    PJ
    a little confused sorry... you stated:

    am I not to infer that this suggests a duality?
    a duality of nothingness and somethingness?

    I have suggested that in physics nothing-ness can not be considered as a part of a duality however positive and negative structures could be. Further, that it would be better for want of a better explanation to consider nothing-ness to be a "default" pseudo partner of a triality instead.

    When looking at a bar magnet [ which I think is an excellent analogy.]and we consider the two opposing poles and wonder at what point do the poles become zero along the length of teh magnet. One can consider an infinitley thin line at some point that would indicate but never prove as in show demonstrably absolute zero.

    The other interesting thing to consider for later discussion about bar magnets is that even if you cut the magnet in half along this infinitely thin line you will then have two bar magnets with poles on both ends. So no matter how thin a slice you take from the magnet you will always have two poles on either side of that slice. Apply this to a two dimesnional slice [ zero thickness ] and you have a two dimensionsional slice that has positive on one side and negative on the other. the same would apply to an infinitely thin slice as well.

    So thus we can logically prove the non-existance of nothingness.....
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2007
  11. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Quack:

    I don't recall if we went over my point that I am about to give, but here it is:

    Let INS = Infinitely small.

    Let's contrast the following equations:

    INS + INS = 2INS

    INS + INS = INS

    Keeping in mind that INS is properly put forth as a positive number (so that adding INS is not the same as subtracting) then it becomes clear that we have a problem. As no positive number added to another number can be less than or equal to the number it is added. The only value it could have if it is not negative, is for it to be 0, and if it is 0, then it is not properly INS.

    On the other hand, if INS + INS = 2INS, then we have no problem on the addition front.

    Now, it will be admitted that everything is made up of an infinite amount of INS parts, no? That is to say, everything is infinitely divisible, therefore the only way to discuss what is the result of that is to say INS, yes? Well then, in order for any number to make sense, the result of INS + INS must = 2INS. For if INS + INS cannot itself produce anything but INS, we cannot have any number whatsover, as INS could never progress beyond INS.

    The question then arises: Why speak of nothingness causing somethingness/time if this is the case? If we, essentially, resolve back to eternity?

    So basically, nothingness depends on somethingness just as much as vice-versa?
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    we are close PJ...very close but we have at least two sticking points....I shall consider and post shortly....
     
  13. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Quack:

    Yes. But let us call it "a non-seesaw duality". That is to say, there is no fulcrum (zero magnetic charge, neither positive or negative, et cetera) in the mid-point. The mid-point is only to be found in things which are transient and temporal - that is, things which are neither absolutely existent (infinite and eternal) or absolutely non-existent.

    Which would be your bar magnet example below?

    Hmmm. That's a question. Would an infinitely thin slice have enough space to have any charge? For as there would have to be two charges, you'd have to create something less than the infinitely small, which would be absurd! Accordingly, it would seem that charge could only exist in a length that was a little more than 2x infinitely small.


    That I agree, yes.
     
  14. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Take your time!
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    PJ
    I am not sure I understand this paragragh. The mid point can be found in a bar magnet I think......
    also I do not necessarilly agree with the notion of magnetic charge as such....but maybe this is another issue.....

    (+)>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<(-)

    at some point on the bar magnet the pole must invert and become opposite. It is at this point that nothingness can't be found. This point can either be considered as infintely thin or zero thickness.

    And due to this, that point of inversion is not to be found. However inversion of pole is obviously a reality...ok?

    You are assuming with this comment that charge must be 3 dimensional when in fact it may only be two dimensional [ certainly photon theory will show that from the photons perspective it is 2 dimensional - if I am not mistaken - SRT demands this outcome I think]

    We do have to eventually resolve this
    infs + infs = 2 infs issue befroe moving forward I feel....ths is a major conceptual problem and major disagreement in our discussion.
    BTW I am not fully conversant with Zenos Paradox, however I am fully convinced that we can not add two absolutes { infinitey } together as to do so suggest that the absolutes are not absolute to begin with. [ infinitely is absolute and not able to be added to or subtracted from]
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    BTW
    There is also a new idea I am working on and that being that matter can only exist because it is innately temporal....now that is going to be hard to explain. But to say that even if we do not see it it exists because it is innately temporal and linked directly to universal consciousness...[ lets rewrite physics shall we....]

    Because according to zero point theory of mine the universe should be non-existant at the infinitey small duration of time called the NOW. How ever it is existant so it must be temporal in nature.
     
  17. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Quack:

    I was speaking of the duality of existence and non-existence.

    Granted.

    In either case, would not the infinitely small be the smallest area of whatever dimension? Or are you assuming the infinitely small bit would be third dimensional, its charge two dimensional?

    However, I'd argue against actual second dimensions, on account of the fact that without depth, there can be no connection. That is, if something has no depth, what would happen if one were to stick one's finger through it in the third dimension?

    Certainly t his is true in regards to the infinitely large, but on the infinitely small level, it seems perfectly acceptable, whereas subtraction is barred.

    And the Zeno's paradox I referenced was his Paradox of the Arrow. Where at any point in time, the still-frame image of an arrow in flight neither shows it moving, going towards something, or being anything but perfectly suspended in the air. That is to say, motion cannot be found in space alone. Zeno said this disproved all motion. I, obviously, disagree.

    What would this universal consciousness be like?
     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    trythis:
    to add two infinities together you would have to add to one infinity a part of itself as the second infinitity must be a part of the first infinity.

    A bit like saying Infinitey + 2 still equalls infinity because the 2 you are adding ara already a part of the original infinity to begin with.

    "Take 100 apples from a pile of 1000 apples and add them to that same pile. How many apples do you have?"
     
  19. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Quack:

    Whereas I agree with you on the infinitely large, I see no reason why this should extend to the infinitely small. That is to say, outside of a strictly linear number line, and into three-dimensional space, the infinitely small can be infinitely numerous and still infinitely small. That is to say, all points in space (or time in terms of duration) would be infinitely small without conflict.
     
  20. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    "All points in space...would be infinitely small without conflict"

    You do understand that the infinitely small has a barrier of Zero, while the infinitely large has no such limit, right? You are trying to take the potential infinity of the large, and extend that to the small... but there is a wall awaiting you. And since no number before that limit will *ever* behave like a Zero, you can not give *any* of them the properties that you attempt to. All non-Zero numbers must behave as such, no matter how small.


    PJ, this is so nearly the same conversation that you and I had recently. I believe your conceptualization of time, and the infinitesimal, are holding your cosmology back. I do admire the time and effort that you are putting into it.

    Quantum, I'm really enjoying the read.
     
  21. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Swivel:

    Thank you, my good man. Know that I also appreciate your efforts, even if I disagree with your points.

    However, you fail to recognize that I am not trying to have any number act like zero. In fact, I am explicitly trying to have it -not- act as zero.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    swivel,
    I am glad you have found interest and look forward to any input you may offer.

    Pj
    I tend to agree with Swivel's comment however probably for different reasons

    We need to clarify the distinction between infinitely small and zero. This would be our best option.

    Regarding the bar magnet analogy, can we agree that the poles must go through zero before inverting or do they go down to infinitely small and then invert.
    Logically it could be said that they must go through zero before inverting but I await your assessments.

    Reasoning: possibly I have over complicated things by allowing the notion of "infinitely small " to enter my descriptions. Possibly I should have stuck to the simplicity or 2 dimensionalism. [ zero ]
     
  23. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Quack:

    Yes, they reach a point where both charges are absolutely equal, hence neutral, at the exact mid-point. This mid-point, by necessity, would infinitely small in size, but would represent "electrically neutral" or "0".
     

Share This Page