what is something, what is nothing

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,597
Fair enough. If you have a good enough reason to believe something, then that's fine too.
and so I repeat, everything (atleast at the macro level) we observe is dependent on something else

taken together with the point that something has always existed, then its reasonable to suggest that there cannot be an infinite regress of dependent things, it has to stop somewhere
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,887
and so I repeat, everything (atleast at the macro level) we observe is dependent on something else

taken together with the point that something has always existed, then its reasonable to suggest that there cannot be an infinite regress of dependent things, it has to stop somewhere
Maybe, I mean, who knows?
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,227
and so I repeat, everything (atleast at the macro level) we observe is dependent on something else
Says who? And seeing all things macro are made up of micro bits, one cannot postulate this without including micro.

taken together with the point that something has always existed, then its reasonable to suggest that there cannot be an infinite regress of dependent things, it has to stop somewhere
Says who?
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,227
if there is an infinite regress of dependent things, then nothing would exist as there will be an infinite regress of dependency
Yes, we got where you were going with this particular train of thought. However, the original assumption is not proven or even likely, therefore the follow up assumption is also invalid.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,887
if there is an infinite regress of dependent things, then nothing would exist as there will be an infinite regress of dependency
I don't see a problem with infinite regress, because well A) things do exist and B) if there was an initial "something", one could still ask what that something is or where it came from.
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,227
if there is an infinite regress of dependent things, then nothing would exist as there will be an infinite regress of dependency
But hang on, haven't you got this wrong? An infinite regression of something depending on something to exist, means something has always existed. Therefore, "nothing" could not ever have existed.

Of course, using the word "existed" itself is a problem with a concept of nothingness.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,597
I don't see a problem with infinite regress, because well A) things do exist and B) if there was an initial "something", one could still ask what that something is or where it came from.
how do you reconcile an infinite regress of dependent things with the fact that things do exist?
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,887
how do you reconcile an infinite regress of dependent things with the fact that things do exist?
Well, I'm pretty sure things exist. Maybe we're Boltzmann brains? Maybe we're in a simulation.

But in all honesty, if I don't know what happened before the big bang, there's no real reason for me to think about it. It becomes a less meaningful question over time, as it doesn't appear that anybody has any answers. I'd have no idea if the universe was indeed dependent on anything.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,597
there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers...
Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,980
If randomness and infinity are synonymous then perhaps there would be no infinite regression problem. Our universe and all of its dependencies would regress to random, from whence it came.

I've been down this road before lol. :) A mind in existential crisis has thought of many possibilities :/
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,887
thats not what I said, its a direct quote, you are welcome to show a quote supporting your view
Why would there not be a need for science if you're in a simulation or a brain in a vat? How would anything be any different to how it is currently and how would you know?

Do you at least understand how meaningless the question of "what came before the universe" is? Science tells us there's no reason to think that inflation ever ended. This is fascinating because it paves the way for many, many, many universes of which ours is just 1. Even if I were to grant you an uncaused first cause, how can you or anyone else, possibly know what that first cause 1) is? 2) how it works? 3) absolutely anything about it other than it was an "uncaused first cause" and then still, how would you even know what you're thinking about in that case, is the uncaused first cause and not 1 cause before the uncaused first cause, etc, etc?
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,980
so your subjective view matters how exactly?
You deserve a right backhand for this attitude. This isn't the first time either.

Since when am I not allowed to voice my own considerations on a matter? You can say what you bloody well want but I cannot?

I cannot believe the arrogance :/

How about sticking to my argument you muppet. You asked how does one reconcile it did you not??? Is there something wrong or illogical about the possibility I put forward? If so, say so, and state why so we can formalize a discussion around it... don't come with BS like this. "Oh what does it matter what your views are...". This is primary school antics ffs.

What is it with everyone who disagrees with me on PD section going straight to my character always??? Are they that weak?
 
Last edited:
Top