Why is there something rather than nothing?
25 views
Skip to first unread message
Roger
Aug 18, 2011, 1:26:08 AM8/18/11
to Epistemology, roge...@yahoo.com
If anyone is interested, I put some of my ideas on why things
exist, why is there something rather than nothing, and infinite sets
at the following website:
https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/
The abstract of the "Why do things exist and why is there
something rather than nothing?" paper is also below. Thank you!
Roger
Why Do Things Exist and Why is There Something Rather than Nothing?
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. 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".
exist, why is there something rather than nothing, and infinite sets
at the following website:
https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/
The abstract of the "Why do things exist and why is there
something rather than nothing?" paper is also below. Thank you!
Roger
Why Do Things Exist and Why is There Something Rather than Nothing?
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. 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".
einseele
Aug 18, 2011, 9:09:58 AM8/18/11
to Epistemology
I found your post very interesting!
A philosophical engineering is possible yes I'm sure.
In other words, to develop certain objects, right through pure
speculation, which are able to interact in a third position which is
not purely scientific or philosophic. (if I got correctly the
expression)
Called my attention what you called here the "boundary" which "gives"
substance.
best
Carlos
A philosophical engineering is possible yes I'm sure.
In other words, to develop certain objects, right through pure
speculation, which are able to interact in a third position which is
not purely scientific or philosophic. (if I got correctly the
expression)
Called my attention what you called here the "boundary" which "gives"
substance.
best
Carlos
Roger
Aug 19, 2011, 2:32:14 AM8/19/11
to Epistemology
Carlos,
Hi. Thanks for the comment and for reading my posting! The idea
that the complete definition of something is a boundary or edge that
gives substance and existence to a thing seems to make sense to me.
Also, it sounds similar to stuff physicists are talking about now such
as string theory (strings seem like boundaries) and that we may be
holographic projections from a membrane (ie, boundary). Thanks again!
Roger
Hi. Thanks for the comment and for reading my posting! The idea
that the complete definition of something is a boundary or edge that
gives substance and existence to a thing seems to make sense to me.
Also, it sounds similar to stuff physicists are talking about now such
as string theory (strings seem like boundaries) and that we may be
holographic projections from a membrane (ie, boundary). Thanks again!
Roger
einseele
Aug 20, 2011, 3:15:47 PM8/20/11
to Epistemology
Hello Roger
In case that boundary gives substance and existence, would you agree
that information matches as a concept that boundary definition.
And if so, would you agree that that boundary contacts both the inner
and outer components of this model.
And if so, would you also agree that the outer hand of that boundary
somehow is related to the non existent part (non existent to the inner
object).
If we could imagine an universe made of just one particle, the outer
space of that universe being non existent should have at least an
attribute, not having the only particle, would you agree that that
only attribute is enough to completely define the only particle within
its counterpart universe.
In other words, could be that the absence of information is some kind
of information. And if so would you agree that that kind is the only
information possible.
I would of course. To me information is the absent part of the
equation
Thank you too
Carlos
In case that boundary gives substance and existence, would you agree
that information matches as a concept that boundary definition.
And if so, would you agree that that boundary contacts both the inner
and outer components of this model.
And if so, would you also agree that the outer hand of that boundary
somehow is related to the non existent part (non existent to the inner
object).
If we could imagine an universe made of just one particle, the outer
space of that universe being non existent should have at least an
attribute, not having the only particle, would you agree that that
only attribute is enough to completely define the only particle within
its counterpart universe.
In other words, could be that the absence of information is some kind
of information. And if so would you agree that that kind is the only
information possible.
I would of course. To me information is the absent part of the
equation
Thank you too
Carlos
Roger
Aug 22, 2011, 1:26:59 AM8/22/11
to Epistemology
Carlos,
Hi. I'm not sure if I completely understand, but what I'd say in
response is that:
o What I call a complete definition of what is present, which is
equivalent to a boundary or edge defining what is contained within, I
think could also be called information in that the complete definition
tells what is contained within and thus provides information.
o I prefer to not just say "information" without defining what is
meant by that. Physicists do this all the time, but what exactly is
information? To me, it doesn't matter what you call the fundamental
unit of existence (information, mathematical constructs, matter,
fundamental particles, etc.), it still exists, and the key is finding
out why it exists instead of not existing. I think by saying that a
thing exists if what is contained within or meant by that thing is
completely defined is at least a mechanism or reason for why things
exist. Then, once knowing why the fundamental thing exists, I'd agree
with you in saying that this complete definition is equivalent to
information.
o I agree completely that the universe is composed of one fundamental
kind of existent state (or particle). If physicists and philosophers
really want a unified theory of the universe, this is about as unified
as you can get. What I'm suggesting is that this fundamental existent
state is equivalent to what we've traditionally, and incorrectly,
thought of as the complete lack-of-all, or non-existence, because this
complete lack-of-all, in and of itself, completely describes the
entirety of what is there and is thus a complete definition or an
existent state. Whether or not its called the complete lack-of-all
or absence-of-information, I think the reason we've always incorrectly
thought of it as an absence of something is because we're forced to
think of it within our minds, which exist and which have information.
Next to our minds, it just looks like a complete absence. But, this
complete lack-of-all/absence-of information, and not our mind's
conception of it, doesn't face this constraint. The complete absence
is independent of our mind's conception of it, and, in and of itself,
completely describes the entirety of what is there and is thus really
an existent state. Whether you call this existent state information
or something else doesn't matter; it's the fundamental unit of
existence. Overall, this sounds very similar to what you're saying
agree with you. What you call information, I prefer to call a
complete definition because it kind of describes more of a mechanism/
reason for what it means.
Thanks!
Roger
Hi. I'm not sure if I completely understand, but what I'd say in
response is that:
o What I call a complete definition of what is present, which is
equivalent to a boundary or edge defining what is contained within, I
think could also be called information in that the complete definition
tells what is contained within and thus provides information.
o I prefer to not just say "information" without defining what is
meant by that. Physicists do this all the time, but what exactly is
information? To me, it doesn't matter what you call the fundamental
unit of existence (information, mathematical constructs, matter,
fundamental particles, etc.), it still exists, and the key is finding
out why it exists instead of not existing. I think by saying that a
thing exists if what is contained within or meant by that thing is
completely defined is at least a mechanism or reason for why things
exist. Then, once knowing why the fundamental thing exists, I'd agree
with you in saying that this complete definition is equivalent to
information.
o I agree completely that the universe is composed of one fundamental
kind of existent state (or particle). If physicists and philosophers
really want a unified theory of the universe, this is about as unified
as you can get. What I'm suggesting is that this fundamental existent
state is equivalent to what we've traditionally, and incorrectly,
thought of as the complete lack-of-all, or non-existence, because this
complete lack-of-all, in and of itself, completely describes the
entirety of what is there and is thus a complete definition or an
existent state. Whether or not its called the complete lack-of-all
or absence-of-information, I think the reason we've always incorrectly
thought of it as an absence of something is because we're forced to
think of it within our minds, which exist and which have information.
Next to our minds, it just looks like a complete absence. But, this
complete lack-of-all/absence-of information, and not our mind's
conception of it, doesn't face this constraint. The complete absence
is independent of our mind's conception of it, and, in and of itself,
completely describes the entirety of what is there and is thus really
an existent state. Whether you call this existent state information
or something else doesn't matter; it's the fundamental unit of
existence. Overall, this sounds very similar to what you're saying
that "the absence of information is some kind of information".
So, sorry for such a long-winded reply, and I think I pretty much
agree with you. What you call information, I prefer to call a
complete definition because it kind of describes more of a mechanism/
reason for what it means.
Thanks!
Roger
einseele
Aug 22, 2011, 2:40:25 PM8/22/11
to Epistemology
Hello Roger
I think we are tuning somehow the same channel, and may be using
different words trying to point the same.
> o What I call a complete definition of what is present, which is
> equivalent to a boundary or edge defining what is contained within, I
> think could also be called information in that the complete definition
> tells what is contained within and thus provides information.
I agree with this, so I will switch to "complete definition" instead
using the word "information",
Just want to remark that the complete definition should be in this
model the boundary itself, and regardless what is contained within,
that boundary is different of the contained package.
Goes beyond since it needs to separate at least two different
environments. Defining completely its contents is equivalent to define
what that content is not. The negative part of that content is as well
a complete definition, even not being or not existent.
Is here where I like to use the word "absence", which in no sense
means not existing but "not here"
In binary systems that absence is represented by a zero (0), or better
said the lack of a signal on any given surface, the lack of that
signal is filled with language. In reality that 0 mark assumes the
representation of something which did not show up. That something is
absent, not here, not within the contained part, although certainly is
part of the complete definition if I may say.
For instance, if I encode "Roger" into a common binary sequence you
will have your name expressed as:
0101001001101111011001110110010101110010 (you can play with this at:
http://www.nickciske.com/tools/binary.php)
A computer system would print just a few signals (the 1s), and would
leave empty spaces represented by the 0s, that empty space is
meaningful because of its relative position to the only signal (1)
I believe this is just another way of saying:
> The complete absence is independent of our mind's conception of it, and, in and of itself,
> completely describes the entirety of what is there and is thus really
> an existent state."
rgds
Carlos
I think we are tuning somehow the same channel, and may be using
different words trying to point the same.
> o What I call a complete definition of what is present, which is
> equivalent to a boundary or edge defining what is contained within, I
> think could also be called information in that the complete definition
> tells what is contained within and thus provides information.
using the word "information",
Just want to remark that the complete definition should be in this
model the boundary itself, and regardless what is contained within,
that boundary is different of the contained package.
Goes beyond since it needs to separate at least two different
environments. Defining completely its contents is equivalent to define
what that content is not. The negative part of that content is as well
a complete definition, even not being or not existent.
Is here where I like to use the word "absence", which in no sense
means not existing but "not here"
In binary systems that absence is represented by a zero (0), or better
said the lack of a signal on any given surface, the lack of that
signal is filled with language. In reality that 0 mark assumes the
representation of something which did not show up. That something is
absent, not here, not within the contained part, although certainly is
part of the complete definition if I may say.
For instance, if I encode "Roger" into a common binary sequence you
will have your name expressed as:
0101001001101111011001110110010101110010 (you can play with this at:
http://www.nickciske.com/tools/binary.php)
A computer system would print just a few signals (the 1s), and would
leave empty spaces represented by the 0s, that empty space is
meaningful because of its relative position to the only signal (1)
I believe this is just another way of saying:
> The complete absence is independent of our mind's conception of it, and, in and of itself,
> completely describes the entirety of what is there and is thus really
> an existent state."
Carlos
bobgre...@yahoo.com
Aug 22, 2011, 9:08:03 PM8/22/11
to Epistemology
I think there is something rather than nothing because the state of
"nothing" is UNSTABLE. Read "The Origin of the Universe - Case
Closed" for the details.
"nothing" is UNSTABLE. Read "The Origin of the Universe - Case
Closed" for the details.
Roger
Aug 23, 2011, 12:47:16 AM8/23/11
to Epistemology
Bob,
Hi. Thanks for the response. I haven't read the book yet because
it costs some money, but given that, I'd probably say that in order to
be unstable, there would have to be something in "nothing" to make it
unstable. Maybe, that something is absolute absence itself, but what
is the mechanism or reason for saying that absolute absence is
unstable. Thanks!
Roger
On Aug 22, 9:08 pm, "bobgreen2...@yahoo.com" <bobgreen2...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Hi. Thanks for the response. I haven't read the book yet because
it costs some money, but given that, I'd probably say that in order to
be unstable, there would have to be something in "nothing" to make it
unstable. Maybe, that something is absolute absence itself, but what
is the mechanism or reason for saying that absolute absence is
unstable. Thanks!
Roger
On Aug 22, 9:08 pm, "bobgreen2...@yahoo.com" <bobgreen2...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Roger
Aug 23, 2011, 1:05:23 AM8/23/11
to Epistemology
Carlos,
Hi. I think I agree with you that we're talking about the same
idea. Also, you're exactly in saying that the complete definition is
the boundary itself. I think where we separate a little, not in our
thinking but in what we're thinking about, is that for what I'm
considering, absolute absence of all that traditionally has been
thought of as existing, there is no stuff inside the boundary. You
can't have subcomponents of what's been traditionally thought of as
non-existence. I think this would be the most fundamental of all
existent states and would have no separable sub-parts. But, if we're
not talking about a single instance of this existent state but are
instead talking about states that exist within a bigger context (or
bigger set of existent states), then I absolutely agree that the
boundary would separate two different environments, what's contained
within and what's outside.
As someone else mentioned, once we can kind of agree on the
terminology, what's real powerful is figuring out what properties
these existent states have and what can be done with them. I've tried
to do that at my website with the existent state that has
traditionally been called non-existence by using it to build a model
of physical things. It sounds like you may be working on it from a
more computer angle? Hopefully, we can do something with these models
someday!
Also, thanks for telling me how to say Roger in binary! See you.
0101001001101111011001110110010101110010 (aka Roger)
P.S. I checked it out and Carlos is
0100001101100001011100100110110001101111011100110000110100001010
Hi. I think I agree with you that we're talking about the same
idea. Also, you're exactly in saying that the complete definition is
the boundary itself. I think where we separate a little, not in our
thinking but in what we're thinking about, is that for what I'm
considering, absolute absence of all that traditionally has been
thought of as existing, there is no stuff inside the boundary. You
can't have subcomponents of what's been traditionally thought of as
non-existence. I think this would be the most fundamental of all
existent states and would have no separable sub-parts. But, if we're
not talking about a single instance of this existent state but are
instead talking about states that exist within a bigger context (or
bigger set of existent states), then I absolutely agree that the
boundary would separate two different environments, what's contained
within and what's outside.
As someone else mentioned, once we can kind of agree on the
terminology, what's real powerful is figuring out what properties
these existent states have and what can be done with them. I've tried
to do that at my website with the existent state that has
traditionally been called non-existence by using it to build a model
of physical things. It sounds like you may be working on it from a
more computer angle? Hopefully, we can do something with these models
someday!
Also, thanks for telling me how to say Roger in binary! See you.
0101001001101111011001110110010101110010 (aka Roger)
P.S. I checked it out and Carlos is
0100001101100001011100100110110001101111011100110000110100001010
einseele
Aug 23, 2011, 8:10:06 AM8/23/11
to Epistemology
Hello Roger
I some time play with the idea of two dimensional objects. These
should be a sort of objects which can only admit two parameters, like
for instance two reference points.
They are of course questioned as separate objects and their existence
as such I agree is problematic, although they are indeed vastly used
in physics and other scientific disciplines
There are a lot of examples like Temperature, Time, Distance, Speed,
and many others.
Regardless if Time exists or not as a separate object (Steven Hawking
affirms that saying Time is the most inner part of existence, the
void. That something which could not be broken into sub elements, and
if we could somehow enlarge their tiny... what?, space? it fills, we
could travel backwards in Time) This is like fiction of course.
And my opinion because of my job is that two dimensional objects
indeed exist, but they can only be accessed by language, which is the
most important of the said two dimensional objects
Someone could say that in the end language is certain neuronal
structure, and so the three dimensional rule applies, but that is not.
Language to work does not admit a third parameter and has no volume.
Expressions regarding volumes of information, language or the like do
not refer to language but to its different vehicles. If I say for
instance that my pendrive loads 8 GB of....?, that does not mean
anything regarding language itself, nor the code used to print that
surface, the code is not there.
The same applies for instance to DNA, the physic elements which build
my cells are not the Code, but its printed effects if I can say that.
This apply to all codes as well like in information theories, and
there are of course 3 or more dimensions in many forms of
developments, but those are just models which cannot escape the boring
001100000011111 sequence.
Do you have any position regarding this type of existence. Your
thoughts base pretty much if I'm not wrong in the fact that any
existent object, even the complete absence of existence, must have 3
dimensions.
Mine is that there are objects which can be accessed through language,
which have just 2, and they are efficient all around us.
In othe words, back to the model of the boundary, the boundary itself
is also a two dimensional object, has only two parameters, two hands
and nothing in between under this approach. Its mission is just to
separate two instances, in and out, if I get it correctly
I mean you could even take that boundary as the inner object and to
completely define it, but that requires a second boundary surrounding.
Thank you for a good conversation
Carlos
> ...
>
> read more »
I some time play with the idea of two dimensional objects. These
should be a sort of objects which can only admit two parameters, like
for instance two reference points.
They are of course questioned as separate objects and their existence
as such I agree is problematic, although they are indeed vastly used
in physics and other scientific disciplines
There are a lot of examples like Temperature, Time, Distance, Speed,
and many others.
Regardless if Time exists or not as a separate object (Steven Hawking
affirms that saying Time is the most inner part of existence, the
void. That something which could not be broken into sub elements, and
if we could somehow enlarge their tiny... what?, space? it fills, we
could travel backwards in Time) This is like fiction of course.
And my opinion because of my job is that two dimensional objects
indeed exist, but they can only be accessed by language, which is the
most important of the said two dimensional objects
Someone could say that in the end language is certain neuronal
structure, and so the three dimensional rule applies, but that is not.
Language to work does not admit a third parameter and has no volume.
Expressions regarding volumes of information, language or the like do
not refer to language but to its different vehicles. If I say for
instance that my pendrive loads 8 GB of....?, that does not mean
anything regarding language itself, nor the code used to print that
surface, the code is not there.
The same applies for instance to DNA, the physic elements which build
my cells are not the Code, but its printed effects if I can say that.
This apply to all codes as well like in information theories, and
there are of course 3 or more dimensions in many forms of
developments, but those are just models which cannot escape the boring
001100000011111 sequence.
Do you have any position regarding this type of existence. Your
thoughts base pretty much if I'm not wrong in the fact that any
existent object, even the complete absence of existence, must have 3
dimensions.
Mine is that there are objects which can be accessed through language,
which have just 2, and they are efficient all around us.
In othe words, back to the model of the boundary, the boundary itself
is also a two dimensional object, has only two parameters, two hands
and nothing in between under this approach. Its mission is just to
separate two instances, in and out, if I get it correctly
I mean you could even take that boundary as the inner object and to
completely define it, but that requires a second boundary surrounding.
Thank you for a good conversation
Carlos
>
> read more »
Lonnie Clay
Aug 23, 2011, 9:07:36 AM8/23/11
to episte...@googlegroups.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory
When taking something in isolation, there is only what IS versus what is NOT the thing. However, such things exist only in the abstract. Even when considering nothingness the question goes begging of "nothingness of what?" For such a nothingness to exist, the idea of something other than the nothingness must be present, otherwise the nothingness is itself complete and "everything" rather than nothingness. Do you see my point?
A set is determined by the specification of RELEVANT conditions which determine whether or not something is within the set. Those conditions are taken in CONTEXT within a domain of POSSIBLE conditions. The domain of possible conditions is bounded by the ability to EXPRESS a condition. In other words, the unknown cannot be defined except as the unknown. If the language fails to express a concept, then within THAT language the concept is unknown. The "impossible" is relative within the set of KNOWN, otherwise it would lack a proof of its impossibility and be inexpressibly unknown.
As mankind's knowledge base has expanded, the boundaries of the unknown have receded into the distance of our mental landscapes. A cutting insult is to say that someone is small minded. The unknown is still out there, being unknown in its extent, and due to our ability to think only using language rather than in pure abstractions, will be unknown to a different extent depending upon an individual's grasp of the language of thought. A nice compliment is to say that someone has a flexible mind. Their mind expands in response to awareness of ideas not previously expressed. Such persons mark off portions of the unknown and map them out with their ability to scout out ideas and express them in ways which less flexible persons can comprehend.
To get back to the topic. At the outermost of the outermost of ... there is the unknown. Within that boundary there is nothingness. Nested inside nothingness is the all. Within the all there is the unthinkable, unbelievable, impossible, inconceivable, and various other territories beyond the boundaries of small minded people until you get down to the nutshell of existence. To those whose minds comprehend only what they perceive of the all, there is nothing outside the nutshell of existence. They say that anyone who thinks outside the nutshell is nuts. LOLOL LOLOL LOLOL.
Lonnie Courtney Clay
Roger
Aug 24, 2011, 2:29:53 AM8/24/11
to Epistemology
Carlos,
In some ways, I think we're still agreeing in that you mention that
whether or not 2D objects really exist as separate objects is
problematic. I would definitely agree and go further in saying that
without that 3rd dimension, they're just not there. There's no there
there. I also know what you're talking about when you say that 2D
objects exist but can only be accessed by language, but I'd kind of
like to qualify my agreement with this by saying:
o Within the framework or context of language, I agree that there
could be 2D objects and that these are very useful, but
o Language (and any other abstract thing like an idea or concept)
itself is, if taken to the logical extreme, made of 3D objects: The
atoms in your brain that store and process words and images are 3D and
take up volume. The molecules in air that carry spoken language are
3D. The electrons that carry binary code in computers are 3D.
So, I don't think we're really in disagreement, we're just
thinking in different reference frames. For me, I'm more interested
in the 3D "physical" and concrete existent states and how they might
relate to physics, and it sounds like you might be more interested in
the 2D objects that can be accessed via language and computing?
Also, I just wanted to mention that when you said:
"Your thoughts base pretty much if I'm not wrong in the fact that any
existent object, even the complete absence of existence, must have 3
dimensions."
I agree that this is what I think, but I'd just want to rephrase the
above sentence to:
"...that any existent object, even what has traditionally been called
the complete absence of existence".
This is just because I wanted to say again that what I think is that
what we've always called the complete absence of existence, or non-
existence, is really a misnomer. It actually exists because it's a
complete definition, but we just haven't thought of it that way before
and therefore mistakenly called it non-existence.
I agree that this has been a very good conversation. Thanks!
Roger
> ...
>
> read more »
In some ways, I think we're still agreeing in that you mention that
whether or not 2D objects really exist as separate objects is
problematic. I would definitely agree and go further in saying that
without that 3rd dimension, they're just not there. There's no there
there. I also know what you're talking about when you say that 2D
objects exist but can only be accessed by language, but I'd kind of
like to qualify my agreement with this by saying:
o Within the framework or context of language, I agree that there
could be 2D objects and that these are very useful, but
o Language (and any other abstract thing like an idea or concept)
itself is, if taken to the logical extreme, made of 3D objects: The
atoms in your brain that store and process words and images are 3D and
take up volume. The molecules in air that carry spoken language are
3D. The electrons that carry binary code in computers are 3D.
So, I don't think we're really in disagreement, we're just
thinking in different reference frames. For me, I'm more interested
in the 3D "physical" and concrete existent states and how they might
relate to physics, and it sounds like you might be more interested in
the 2D objects that can be accessed via language and computing?
Also, I just wanted to mention that when you said:
"Your thoughts base pretty much if I'm not wrong in the fact that any
existent object, even the complete absence of existence, must have 3
dimensions."
above sentence to:
"...that any existent object, even what has traditionally been called
the complete absence of existence".
This is just because I wanted to say again that what I think is that
what we've always called the complete absence of existence, or non-
existence, is really a misnomer. It actually exists because it's a
complete definition, but we just haven't thought of it that way before
and therefore mistakenly called it non-existence.
I agree that this has been a very good conversation. Thanks!
Roger
>
> read more »
einseele
Aug 24, 2011, 2:09:19 PM8/24/11
to Epistemology
Hello Roger
We have here a basic difference regarding language and other codes.
I understand your point when saying that in the extreme logic we come
down to certain kind of mass, but in the case of 2D objects that is
not possible. And even if they live in the abstract world, that does
not mean they don live, if you allow me the expression.
> take up volume. The molecules in air that carry spoken language are
> 3D.
This is correct, but note that language is not the molecules in the
air, but that thing they carry on in your expression, that physic
component is not language but its vehicle
>The electrons that carry binary code in computers are 3D.
Same with this, electrons has nothing to do with the binary code, they
are 3D but they are not the code, two sets can even be the same and
yet to mean a totally different thing depending the tool which will
decode
> So, I don't think we're really in disagreement, we're just
> thinking in different reference frames. For me, I'm more interested
> in the 3D "physical" and concrete existent states and how they might
> relate to physics, and it sounds like you might be more interested in
> the 2D objects that can be accessed via language and computing?
Oh yes I know we are just focusing into different components of your
model, if I understood your concepts, you are trying to give reason to
the origin, namely the Big Bang. And also if I got it correctly you
are saying that even in the total absence there is a sort of existence
(which is 3D and has some kind of mass) which is able to expand and
able to fill the "empty" instance.
I picked up the concept of boundary, with which I adhere completely,
and which needs to be of a different nature, since the model claims
the complete definition of the total absence of existence. If we admit
that extreme object, we need to sustain that its definition cannot be
of the same nature. That complete definition IMO can only be a 2D
object, like "code" "language", whatever.
Of course there is no code at the beginning (that idea is reserved I
believe to a religious position), but most certainly there is yes
Temperature. The absolute zero continues to be 2D, and should be
interesting if we think that the absolute zero T could define
completely some kind of physic existence able to give reason to the
expansion.
rgds
Carlos
We have here a basic difference regarding language and other codes.
I understand your point when saying that in the extreme logic we come
down to certain kind of mass, but in the case of 2D objects that is
not possible. And even if they live in the abstract world, that does
not mean they don live, if you allow me the expression.
> take up volume. The molecules in air that carry spoken language are
> 3D.
air, but that thing they carry on in your expression, that physic
component is not language but its vehicle
>The electrons that carry binary code in computers are 3D.
are 3D but they are not the code, two sets can even be the same and
yet to mean a totally different thing depending the tool which will
decode
> So, I don't think we're really in disagreement, we're just
> thinking in different reference frames. For me, I'm more interested
> in the 3D "physical" and concrete existent states and how they might
> relate to physics, and it sounds like you might be more interested in
> the 2D objects that can be accessed via language and computing?
model, if I understood your concepts, you are trying to give reason to
the origin, namely the Big Bang. And also if I got it correctly you
are saying that even in the total absence there is a sort of existence
(which is 3D and has some kind of mass) which is able to expand and
able to fill the "empty" instance.
I picked up the concept of boundary, with which I adhere completely,
and which needs to be of a different nature, since the model claims
the complete definition of the total absence of existence. If we admit
that extreme object, we need to sustain that its definition cannot be
of the same nature. That complete definition IMO can only be a 2D
object, like "code" "language", whatever.
Of course there is no code at the beginning (that idea is reserved I
believe to a religious position), but most certainly there is yes
Temperature. The absolute zero continues to be 2D, and should be
interesting if we think that the absolute zero T could define
completely some kind of physic existence able to give reason to the
expansion.
rgds
Carlos
Roger
Aug 27, 2011, 1:31:32 AM8/27/11
to Epistemology
Carlos,
Hi. I still think we're a little closer in our thinking than
you, but we may need to agree to disagree on some things. I was
trying to get at in the previous posting that I'm okay with having 2D
objects exist in an abstract, language type way. All I was saying was
that for actual physical, non-abstract, objects, I think these have to
have 3 dimensions. In the physical sense, if an object really had one
of its dimensions be zero, not just approaching zero, but zero itself,
I think that object wouldn't be there just by the definition of zero,
at least in a physical sense. This is one of the reasons I get
frustrated with physicists who speak of some particles as being point
particles with no actual size. If a physical particle has zero size,
it's not there. From what I can see, I think physicists are a little
loose and careless with their language and reasoning sometimes. I
think you kind of pointed this out with the Hawking quote, too.
On the code idea, I'm fine with this being 2D in an abstract
sense, but in a physical sense, the code is a set of concepts and
meanings in the mind, and the mind, or brain, exists, which means it
has 3 dimensions, at least in a physical sense. But, I'll accept your
point that in an abstract way, the code is 2D.
Even if we disagree, what I think is even more important is how we
build on our respective philosophical models and use them to do things
like transition into science/physics and computing.
You're one of the few who actually read, thought about and
understood the model I'd proposed at the website, so I really
appreciate that and your feedback even if we disagree a little!
Thanks! The world needs more serious, rational thinkers!
Roger
Hi. I still think we're a little closer in our thinking than
you, but we may need to agree to disagree on some things. I was
trying to get at in the previous posting that I'm okay with having 2D
objects exist in an abstract, language type way. All I was saying was
that for actual physical, non-abstract, objects, I think these have to
have 3 dimensions. In the physical sense, if an object really had one
of its dimensions be zero, not just approaching zero, but zero itself,
I think that object wouldn't be there just by the definition of zero,
at least in a physical sense. This is one of the reasons I get
frustrated with physicists who speak of some particles as being point
particles with no actual size. If a physical particle has zero size,
it's not there. From what I can see, I think physicists are a little
loose and careless with their language and reasoning sometimes. I
think you kind of pointed this out with the Hawking quote, too.
On the code idea, I'm fine with this being 2D in an abstract
sense, but in a physical sense, the code is a set of concepts and
meanings in the mind, and the mind, or brain, exists, which means it
has 3 dimensions, at least in a physical sense. But, I'll accept your
point that in an abstract way, the code is 2D.
Even if we disagree, what I think is even more important is how we
build on our respective philosophical models and use them to do things
like transition into science/physics and computing.
You're one of the few who actually read, thought about and
understood the model I'd proposed at the website, so I really
appreciate that and your feedback even if we disagree a little!
Thanks! The world needs more serious, rational thinkers!
Roger
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages