David, Thanks for the feedback. I'm not suggesting that non-existence/radical absence contains a property or definition because I agree that it would then not be non-existence. I'm suggesting that non-existence is the complete description/definition of what is present and can therefore be considered an existent state. Also, because we're talking about non-existence, we have to reify it (by saying "it is", "what is present", etc.) in order to even discuss it, but non-existence itself doesn't have that property. So, when I say that
"non-existence is the complete description of what is present", by necessity, I'm jumping back and forth between two meanings of non-existence. The first "non-existence" in the phrase refers to non-existence itself and "what is present" is our mind's conception of non-existence. We're stuck having to do this because we exist, but non-existence itself, and not our mind's conception of non-existence" doesn't have this dependence. Thanks! Roger >________________________________ >From: David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> >To: everything-list@googlegroups.com >Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2011 9:49 AM >Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? > >On 9 August 2011 07:36, Roger <roger...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> I always like to distinguish between the >> mind's conception/perception of a thing and the thing itself. So, I'd >> say that a thing can exist even if its properties are unknown to us >> (ie, to our mind's conception of the thing) but those properties have >> to be known, or be part of, the thing itself in order to be properties >> of that thing. I think this is real important in thinking about >> "nothing" or non-existence. Next to our minds, which exist, nothing/ >> non-existence just looks like the lack of existence, or nothing. But, >> non-existence itself, not our mind's conception of non-existence, >> completely describes or defines what is present and is therefore an >> existent state. > >Agreed on the distinction between a conception and what it (may) >ultimately refer to. However, I'm not really convinced of its >centrality in this case. The "nothing" that is here juxtaposed with >"something" is surely intended to rule out any state whatsoever, >including any "properties" or "definitions" thereof. For example, in >the face of such "radical absence", even the truth that "17 is prime" >would be in abeyance (although I suspect Bruno might say that this is >evidence enough that the concept fails to refer). To be sure, given >the brute fact that there IS "something", such radical non-existence >may indeed be excluded as a matter of fact. That is, the IDEA of >"nothing" as the radical absence of any state of affairs whatsoever >may indeed lack any referent in actuality. But notwithstanding this, >any less radical proposal fails to exhaust the concept at its logical >limit (e.g. in your very reliance on the formulation "defines what is >present"). And the dizzying prospect of that ultimate conceptual >limit is, rightly or wrongly, what troubles us when we encounter the >canonical question. > >David > >> Brent, >> >> Thanks for the comment! I always like to distinguish between the >> mind's conception/perception of a thing and the thing itself. So, I'd >> say that a thing can exist even if its properties are unknown to us >> (ie, to our mind's conception of the thing) but those properties have >> to be known, or be part of, the thing itself in order to be properties >> of that thing. I think this is real important in thinking about >> "nothing" or non-existence. Next to our minds, which exist, nothing/ >> non-existence just looks like the lack of existence, or nothing. But, >> non-existence itself, not our mind's conception of non-existence, >> completely describes or defines what is present and is therefore an >> existent state. Thanks! >> >> >> Roger >> >> >> On Aug 8, 1:59 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> On 8/7/2011 11:40 PM, Roger wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > Hi. I used to post to this list but haven't in a long time. I'm >>> > a biochemist but like to think about the question of "Why is there >>> > something rather than nothing?" as a hobby. If you're interested, >>> > some of my ideas on this question and on "Why do things exist?", >>> > infinite sets and on the relationships of all this to mathematics and >>> > physics are at: >>> >>> >https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/ >>> >>> > An abstract of the "Why do things exist and Why is there something >>> > rather than nothing?" paper is below. >>> >>> > Thank you in advance for any feedback you may have. >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > Sincerely, >>> >>> > Roger Granet >>> > >>> > (roger...@yahoo.com) >>> >>> > Abstract: >>> >>> > In this paper, I propose solutions to the questions "Why do things >>> > exist?" and "Why is there something rather than nothing?" In regard >>> > to the first question, "Why do things exist?", it is argued that a >>> > thing exists if the contents of, or what is meant by, that thing are >>> > completely defined. >>> >>> Things that are completely defined are mathematical abstractions: like a >>> differentiable manifold or the natural numbers. One might even argue >>> that an essential characteristic of things that exist is that they can >>> have unknown properties. But perhaps I'm misreading what you mean by >>> "defined". Maybe you just mean that things that exist either have a >>> property or not, independent of our knowledge. So Vic either has a mole >>> on his left side or he doesn't, even though we don't know which; whereas >>> is makes no sense to even wonder whether Sherlock Holmes has a mole on >>> his left side. >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > A complete definition is equivalent to an edge or >>> > boundary defining what is contained within and giving substance and >>> > existence to the thing. In regard to the second question, "Why is >>> > there something rather than nothing?", "nothing", or non-existence, is >>> > first defined to mean: no energy, matter, volume, space, time, >>> > thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc.; and no minds to think >>> > about this lack-of-all. It is then shown that this non-existence >>> > itself, not our mind's conception of non-existence, is the complete >>> > description, or definition, of what is present. That is, no energy, >>> > no matter, no volume, no space, no time, no thoughts, etc., in and of >>> > itself, describes, defines, or tells you, exactly what is present. >>> > Therefore, as a complete definition of what is present, "nothing", or >>> > non-existence, is actually an existent state. So, what has >>> > traditionally been thought of as "nothing", or non-existence, is, when >>> > seen from a different perspective, an existent state or "something". >>> > Said yet another way, non-existence can appear as either "nothing" or >>> > "something" depending on the perspective of the observer. Another >>> > argument is also presented that reaches this same conclusion. >>> > Finally, this reasoning is used to form a primitive model of the >>> > universe via what I refer to as "philosophical engineering". >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> > >-- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >"Everything List" group. >To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >For more options, visit this group at >http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
