On 10/23/2014 12:50 AM, Peter Sas wrote:
Well, I'm not a physicists but a philosopher, so I cannot give a physicist's answer. My
approach is to start with the most fundamental question (Why is there anything at all?)
and then see how far we can get with pure logic alone. It is of course very, very tricky
to try to derive fundamental laws of nature in this way. But I think that we can
actually get quite far with such an a priori method. Now with respect to your question,
I understand that dark energy is a basically repulsive force driving inflation. I don't
want to say I can derive dark energy from a priori principles (that would be absurd).
But I think I can derive a duality of attraction and repulsion in that way. The
reasoning I emply, however, is very abstract, using ideas taken from philosophers like
Hegel and Heidegger, although on the whole I feel more attracted to the rationality of
Anglo-American philosophy (and science) than to postmodern philosophy (which I think is
basically a fraud). Perhaps my reasoning is closest to German idealists like Hegel and
Schelling who still feld they could derive the basic principles of natural science from
philosophical principles. So here is how my argument goes in nuce, I hope you can make
sense of it:
First I argue that nothing is self-negating (for logical arguments see the blog piece).
Simply put: nothing is nothing to such a degree that it isn't even itself! Thus, as
nothing negates itself, it produces being, it becomes something.
I like that. It' just what my friend Norm Levitt used to say, paraphrasing
Quine:
"What is there? Everything! So what isn't there? Nothing!"
Now, since nothing is different from itself, being (as the negation of nothing) must be
different from something else. This then is how I define being: as difference from
something else. Now it is easy to see that this difference must take two forms. First,
being is being because it differs from non-being or nothing (let's call this ontological
difference, following Heidegger). Second, being must also be internally differentiated,
that is to say: there must be multiple beings differing from each other (let's call this
ontic difference). Then we can say: a being is what it is because of its ontic
difference from other beings. (Ultimately, I think, this imlies that beings are
mathematical, for lacking intrinsic qualities of their own,
Why must they lack intrinsic qualities? It seems you are assuming that ontological
difference implies multiplicity and the integers. But what if the something is the
universal wave function (as it is in some theories) which is defined over a complex
Hilbert space? Parts are differentiated by their relation to other parts, but there is no
definitive way to divide it up. Rovelli characterizes it as relations without relata.
they canly be distinguished in quantitative ways, such that it is their position in a
quantitative structure which determines what they are.) Now we can say: the source (or
cause) of what beings are is (ontic) difference. This difference, then, must precede
them, just as any origin must precede the originated (at least logically, if not
temporally). But what is this difference that precedes the different beings? It's like a
relation that generates its own relata. Thus we must postulate something like a pure
difference or a pure negativity underlying the mutual non-identity of beings. But what
is this pure negativity? It seems clear to me that we are now back with our starting
point, the concept of nothing as differing from itself. And this is not surprising if
the self-negating nothing generates all beings, for then it must also act as the pure
negativity that differentiates beings. But now comes the rub: there is a contradiction
between ontological and ontic difference. Recall: ontological difference requires that
beings differ from nothing (i.e. pure negativity), whereas ontic difference requires
that there is pure negativity between them. Hence: to have existence (i.e. ontological
difference) beings must stand in a negative relation to the negativity between them,
they must differ from their mutual difference. But to differ from their mutual
difference, beings must become the same and loose their separate identities.
I don't see how that follows. You and I both differ from Bruno, but that doesn't entail
that you can I are the same person.
Hence there is a contradiction between identity and existence, i.e. between the
determinacy of beings (ontic difference) and their existence (ontological difference):
in short, existence is unifying, determinacy is separating. Now given the fact that
being must be logically consistent, we must interpret this contradiction not as logical
but as an opposition of forces.
"Forces" opposing one another (are we to assume metaphysical equilibrium) seems more
metaphorical than logical.
Brent
Thus existence becomes a unifying force, determinacy (ontic difference) becomes a
separating force. The separating force must manifest itself as repulsion, i.e. as
resistance against unification. The unifying force must manifest itself as resistance
against repulsion, i.e. as attraction. Hence repulsion and attraction are the basic
forces that govern being.
I spelled out this argument in more detail on another blog piece I wrote:
http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/06/theses-towards-dialectical-ontology_8246.html
So if you want more detail, please check this piece. I have to emphasize, however, that
I am still working on these ideas and that I hope to publish a fuller account on my blog
in the near future.
.
Op woensdag 22 oktober 2014 15:46:16 UTC+2 schreef yanniru:
Peter,
Could you elaborate on how Dark Energy fits into your thesis?
Richard
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Peter Sas <peterj...@gmail.com
<javascript:>> wrote:
Hi guys,
Here is a blog piece I wrote about nothing as the ultimate source of
being:
http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/09/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html
<http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/09/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email
to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
<javascript:>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
