The only thing about Larry Krauss that I like is his sketching out a conjecture
for faster than light travel.
-----Original Message-----
From: 'Roger' via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 17, 2015 12:17 am
Subject: Re: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the
universe works and not so much about religion and insults?
Liz,
Hi. I totally agree that if we're talking about the S vs. N question (I
like your shortening of it), we can't assume that pre-quantum fields, the laws
of mathematics, etc. are there. That's what Lawrence Krauss did in his latest
book and was criticized for by philosophers. But, I also think that we can't
assume that all possible information, arithmetical propositions, etc. are
there without explanation. It has to start with what we consider to be the
"absolute lack-of-all". My view, though, is that even if we have what we think
is the "absolute lack-of-all", that "absolute lack-of-all" is itself an
existent entity. I say this because I think an existent entity is a grouping
defining what is contained within. Then, if there is the supposed "absolute
lack-of-all", that would be the entirety of all that is present; there are no
existent entities hidden somewhere else; that's it. Entirety and all are
groupings defining what is contained within, and so it seems like the supposed
"absolute lack-of-all" is itself, then, an existent entity. Of course, because
we wouldn't be there in the case of the supposed "absolute lack-of-all", I
can't prove this, but I can try to use the idea to build a model from it and
see it it fits with what we know about the universe and then try to make some
testable predictions. I'm nowhere near that stage, but by doing this, it
seems like metaphysics can kind of be like science (observe or think about the
S vs. N question, make a hypothesis, and test it to try and get evidence).
On a different note, I have a hard time navigating through all these
different threads and posts. I wish it were somehow a little easier to follow.
But, it could just be me.
Thanks!
Roger
On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 5:13:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 12 January 2015 at 17:23, 'Roger' via Everything List
<everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Everyone,
I'd like to propose that we get back to the subject of discussing our ideas
on how the universe works, why it's here, etc., and stop talking about religion
so much. It'd be nice if we could all also provide constructive criticism if
we disagree, instead of insults. If this turns into a religion, hatred,
insults type forum, for me at least, it will have lost the value it had.
To start, I'd like to propose the following: We all have different views
on the question "Why there is something rather than nothing?", if that question
even has value, how the universe works, etc. I think it's safe to say that,
unless you're an academic, our ideas are also routinely ignored, criticized and
made fun of by academics. The only way for amateurs to ever get more traction
is if we can take our ideas on the universe, build them up, and make models and
testable predictions. That's pretty much the scientific method. Also, if
we're discussing metaphysics, metaphysics is the study of being and existence.
Because the universe "be"s and exists, and physics is the study of how the
universe works, the laws of physics and the universe should be derivable from
the principles of metaphysics. I think many of us are trying to work out the
principles of metaphysics that apply to how the universe works. I call this a
metaphysics-to-physics or philosophical engineering approach. I'd like to
challenge all of us to build models and make predictions based on our ideas.
That's what I'm trying to do in my own thinking. I've got a very basic
beginning model based on my thinking at my website at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing
in the section called Use of the proposed solution to build a model of the
universe. I look forward to reading about others' models on this list in the
future.
Anyways, even if no one is interested, I'd still vote to get away from
religion. Live and let live, let everyone have their say, and move on. That's
my two cents. Thanks.
OK. I have many times dismissed the God hypothesis (on this forum) as having no
explanatory value, as have others. But it keeps coming back.
But anyway...
I don't think there is necessarily something rather than nothing. There may
only appear to be - the "something" of a material universe may be somehow
derived from the "nothing" of all possible information, as suggested by Russell
and others.
I think any serious attempt to explain the S vs N (on this list, given what's
already been said) should start from the basis that "nothing" has to mean
nothing physical - no pre-quantum fields or whatever are good enough, they're
still something. Otherwise you're just going from something to somethnig else,
which is fine in itself but it shouldnt be advertised as something from nothing.
My 2c
--
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.
--
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.
