The Paradox Of Nothingness And The Case For The New Deism - Page 2

jaej · 04-18-2007, 11:58 PM

I don't really think it's circular logic either. I think there just isn't an accurate enough word to describe the state of being of nothing, or rather the lack of a state of being. See? lol

mister_lister · 04-19-2007, 12:25 AM

I see this whole thing as an exercise in the limits of language and of knowledge. In this case, people over analyze words, their meanings, and context. The result is an overly complicated mess, that could actually be summed up simply as " we still do not know where everything came from". To jump to the conclusion that some inteligent higher power is responsible is still a leap and far to easy to make despite the complexity of the arguement supporting it.

Look, some people are not comfortable. They need some idea that simply short circuts the quest for evidence. The idea of a higher power \ creator is that in a nut shell, whether you call it "dynamic deism" or "islam" or "hinduism" it is all attempt to answer the questions that plague some people, its a short circut in the pursuit of knowledge.

If you want so badly to have an answer you will get one - but is it the correct one, supported by evidence? Why not suspend judgement until the evidence is at hand, what is so wrong with that? Dense arguements are mental masterbation. The disection of thought is as endless as imagination.

Og · 04-19-2007, 07:54 AM

The idea that there is a higher power separate from us that created everything is an artifact of the illusion of self that we are all bound up in. The reality is that each of us is like a tornado touching down in a complex storm. We are all biomechanical entities that respond to our world based on the stimuli that we encounter. Sensory inputs to our brain cause complex chemical cascades that appear to us individually as will.

Ultimately, there is no self nor free will. We are all part of the same immensely complex process. This is exactly what modern science illustrates and exactly what buddhism and hinduism have been espousing for 5000+ years.

The idea that there is a power "separate" from "us" MUST be part of the illusion in which we think of ourselves as distinct entities capable of changing our environments as ends in ourselves.

The idea of a higher power is illusory. If there is any "higher" power, it is part of the same process that we are and we are one process with it and not distinct from it in any way and it is not "higher"...

Alumno deVerum · 06-11-2007, 11:18 AM

Unfortunately the last two replys seem to be based on a materialistic point of view. Do you have any evidence materialism is correct?

Og · 06-11-2007, 12:17 PM

There's a large volume of lesion studies that show how brain damage in certain places correlates with consciousness changes. There's also the way that a brain surgeon will map out his location using electrical stimulus which will reproduce the entire spectrum of experience depending on where you're stimulated. Then there's MRI and other imaging techniques which show structure of the brain and activity changes correlating with experience changes.

On top of that, there's a large volume of neurobiology research in model systems (such as the fruit fly and the mouse) and in primates and humans that show us that the brain is composed of neurons that all connect to one another in complex patterns and that send electrochemical signals from one to the other in complex ways. We also know a great deal about sensory systems and peripheral neurons that capture and transduce information from the outside world into the same electrochemical signals in the brain.

There's a large range of clinical examples that illustrate how structural and chemical changes in the brain correlate with drastic changes in behavior/personality.

I think these are pretty solid fields of science and engineering that demonstrate that there just plain isn't room in the behavior of humans for some sort of dualistic point of view. Behavioral neurobiology seems to be a complete explanation of how we behave and experience the world.

I think the available research makes a materialistic point of view the only logical one to take.

Alumno deVerum · 06-12-2007, 07:55 AM

I'm not a dualist. That assumes both materialism and idealism are both true. I don't think that. I think materialism is just flat out wrong. And neither mathematical idealism nor Atheistic Deism (yes there is such a thing and it is the philosophy I adhere to) does not conflict with any of those sciences. In fact it is rigidly logical and rejects mysticism in any form. It also expects those who accept the world is logical to accept the conclusions they are lead to without predjudice whether they like them or not.

Also as the paramedic son of a civil engineer (what are the odds you would name two sciences that I just happen to have years of direct experiance in?), who has personally held someones skull together so thier brains wouldn't fall out while bouncing around in the back of an ambulance running back hot to the hospital because my patient had a bullet in his head that didn't belong to him, I am quite aware of what traumatic brain injury can do first hand. I seen more times than I can count both in the OR and in the field. And I hate to disappoint you but a good number of neurosurgeons consider themselves religious. Some are even ordained. I don't agree with thier theology but they are some of the best surgeons I've ever seen so I can't fault them for it either.

And you still haven't answered the question. Do you have any evidence that materialism, defined as the objective existence of what we percieve as the world, is true? And if you do how did you find out the results of your tests without observing them?

Here is a short passage from my book that addresses some of my problems with arguments for materialism (I'm sorry for the length of this reply but some things just can not be reduced to a sound bite):

The world more and more does seem to be just numbers, values, and probabilities. A materialist may say that the number nine, for instance, must be expressed physically as stones or coins to exist but what is the physical? Albert Einstein proved that mass (matter) is just energy in particle form. Erwin Schrodinger discovered that energy could be manifested as a wave. And Max Born showed that waves are just the probability distribution of a possible event. Probability, in turn, is mathematical in nature and mathematics itself is nothing more than the rules that govern numbers which are concepts that it seems can only be seen by the mind.

Others say the numbers themselves are merely the products of material processes in the brain we impose on the world. But it seems to me this is just substituting one unsubstantiated statement for another.

One can not assert the brain and its processes are material in order to prove the brain and its processes are material. The brain is made of tissue composed of cells built from molecules of atoms that are particles of matter which is energy...

All the evidence I have says that for a concept to exist there must be a mind to consider it. For example I can have 9 coins in one hand and 9 stones in the other but where is the number 9 apart from what I hold? Aside from the fact they are “physical” I can sense no other property they have in common. But changing the quantity doesn’t seem to affect the physical characteristics of either group so that particular integer itself is not intrinsic to either group physically. 9 has attributes I can understand. It is the square of 3. It is an odd number. And I can distinguish those traits from; say, the number 8 which is even and not a square. So even though it is not tangible it is a thing in its own right as a concept. I can not point to anything in nature and say, “This is the number 9 by itself.” I can only think about it.

Here is another dealing with an argument based on relativity theory (which, by the way I accept):

An argument presents itself here and some philosophers have used this to try to make the connection between existence and non-existence materialistically. It goes like this:

The universe is an energy field. The amount of energy in the field depends on the total curvature of space within it. If there is a zero net curvature because the outward push cancels out the inward pull, then space is flat and there should be zero net energy, or in other words, nothing since matter is just a form of energy. If true under the rules of uncertainty in quantum physics this could reduce the cosmos to nothing more than a fluctuation in the vacuum. That is the universe just appeared like what physicists call a “virtual” particle out of the void.

This argument attempts to make a connection between something and nothing (if matter is just a form of energy it, too, is equivalent to zero or nothing) but in my opinion it actually fails because it uses the term zero (0) incorrectly.
To see for yourself what kind of problems can arise from the improper use of zero in mathematics study the problem below (^2 denotes a square):

start with the equation: “a=b”
next multiplying both sides by “a” gives us
“a^2 =ab”
subtract “b2” from both sides to keep it equal
“a^2-b^2 =ab-b^2”
then factor “(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)”
now divide both sides by “a-b”
“(a+b)(a-b)/a-b=b(a-b)/a-b”
giving us “a+b=b.”

If “a=b” and we make “a” equal to 1, then “b” also equals 1, but the last line of the equation states “a+b=b” or substituting 1 for “a” and “b” then 1+1=1 or 2=1. How can this be? If you go back and check all the steps there are no apparent mistakes in operation. This non-sensical answer arises when the equation “(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)” is divided by “a-b.” Until this particular operation is performed there are no difficulties. In fact the resolution of the problem up to that point equals an absolute value of zero. If “a=b” and both are equal to 1 then “a-b” is the same as 1-1=0 but dividing any number, even zero itself, by zero (0/0 as is done here) is not allowed because it can lead to absurdities just like this if your not carefull.

The reverse is also true. Zero divided by any number always equals zero: 0/2=0.

It would appear the proponents of this and similar arguments confuse 0 meaning “nothing” with 0 meaning “no difference”. In other words, it is ambiguous. It also violates a fundamental rule of mathematics, that is, zero divided by any number equals zero (half of nothing is still nothing).

In this case zero obviously means equilibrium, like a scale with 1 ounce of gold in each pan. The scale would read 0 meaning no difference, but there would still be 2 ounces of gold. So I have no reason to conclude that uncertainty could explain the world “popping” into being like a virtual particle for the simple reason it seems that you must first have something to be uncertain about (besides even virtual particles need an infusion of pre-existing energy in order to become stable and thus “real” and where does that come from?). This doesn’t mean the universe isn’t flat. It very well could be, but this argument cannot be used to explain why it exists.

In fact as complexity appears to arise from simplicity, not the other way, around and a “flat” universe in which exactly half the energy in it is positive and attractive (gravity) and the other half is negative and repulsive (the outward expansion) seems to be the simplest possible physical description of the world I have no reason to assume a materialistic explanation can ever be found.

Finally here is one brief argument in favor of Idealism:

The relationships that terms in a sentence have to each other are defined by the copula, the linking word(s) connecting subject to predicate. We link words either positively or negatively with “is” or “is not”. Therefore the opposite of +2 is that which is not +2. Negating only one property between two objects only tends to illustrate their closeness to each other. True opposites would have nothing in common. Taking this to its logical conclusion by applying the term “is not” to “being” as a whole we get an opposite of “no being” or absolute nothingness. A vacuum in physics, therefore, is not the same as nothingness. It is a potential energy field that may expand into a universe. This begs the question - “Why does the universe have the potential to exist?”

Logic says that for something to come from something else there must be something in common between them. In the syllogism it is the middle term that unites the major and minor premises and leads to a conclusion. A physical analogy might envision the energy passed from a cue ball to another ball, which is pocketed in a game of pool or in life it is the DNA passed from one generation to the next that permits evolution. So what does existence have in common with nothingness? Are they not complete opposites?

Logic says that for something to come from something else there must be a commonality between them.

The answer is that they are both concepts. They are both ideas. That is what they have in common. It is the only thing they have in common. Nothingness is the only thing that may be thought of in completely negative terms except for the fact that it is a concept which is something. Nothingness is a concept, you’re thinking about it right now!

No. Materialism just isn't as sturdy as you think it is.

Og · 06-12-2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

All the evidence I have says that for a concept to exist there must be a mind to consider it. For example I can have 9 coins in one hand and 9 stones in the other but where is the number 9 apart from what I hold? Aside from the fact they are “physical” I can sense no other property they have in common. But changing the quantity doesn’t seem to affect the physical characteristics of either group so that particular integer itself is not intrinsic to either group physically. 9 has attributes I can understand. It is the square of 3. It is an odd number. And I can distinguish those traits from; say, the number 8 which is even and not a square. So even though it is not tangible it is a thing in its own right as a concept. I can not point to anything in nature and say, “This is the number 9 by itself.” I can only think about it.

9 is how we relate to objects. When you think "this is the number 9," there is a pattern of electrochemical cascades in your brain producing that thought. The notion does not exist as an idea separate from nature.

Think of a spell checker in a word processor. It doesn't actually exist. It's a collection of photons and electrons moving about in a complex pattern in semiconductors and capacitors and resistors. But we relate to it by calling it a spell checker. The notion of idea of 9 is not something separate from the material world. When you think of 9 by itself, a pattern of neurons in your brain is firing and you're producing something akin to what we would call a spell checker. Its a way your brain creates an internal image of the outside world.

Quote:

start with the equation: “a=b”
next multiplying both sides by “a” gives us
“a^2 =ab”
subtract “b2” from both sides to keep it equal
“a^2-b^2 =ab-b^2”
then factor “(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)”
now divide both sides by “a-b”
“(a+b)(a-b)/a-b=b(a-b)/a-b”
giving us “a+b=b.”

This is fraught with problems. For exapmles, you conveniently step from the previous line to a+b=b and then use the original axiom where a=b. But that can't apply in your final equation because it would produce a 0/0 in the line above it which is undefined.

You've gotta be careful when you go and simplify and square numbers. You discard negative solutions and get rid of singularity points (i.e. 0/0 or infinity/0).

Alumno deVerum · 06-12-2007, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

9 is how we relate to objects. When you think "this is the number 9," there is a pattern of electrochemical cascades in your brain producing that thought. The notion does not exist as an idea separate from nature.

Think of a spell checker in a word processor. It doesn't actually exist. It's a collection of photons and electrons moving about in a complex pattern in semiconductors and capacitors and resistors. But we relate to it by calling it a spell checker. The notion of idea of 9 is not something separate from the material world. When you think of 9 by itself, a pattern of neurons in your brain is firing and you're producing something akin to what we would call a spell checker. Its a way your brain creates an internal image of the outside world.

I guess you missed this:

One can not assert the brain and its processes are material in order to prove the brain and its processes are material. So the question stands do you have any evidence that what we percieve as the world has an objective existence and if so how did you obtain that information without observing it?

And this seems to have gone completely over your head:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

start with the equation: “a=b”
next multiplying both sides by “a” gives us
“a^2 =ab”
subtract “b2” from both sides to keep it equal
“a^2-b^2 =ab-b^2”
then factor “(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)”
now divide both sides by “a-b”
“(a+b)(a-b)/a-b=b(a-b)/a-b”
giving us “a+b=b.”

If “a=b” and we make “a” equal to 1, then “b” also equals 1, but the last line of the equation states “a+b=b” or substituting 1 for “a” and “b” then 1+1=1 or 2=1. How can this be? If you go back and check all the steps there are no apparent mistakes in operation. This non-sensical answer arises when the equation “(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)” is divided by “a-b.” Until this particular operation is performed there are no difficulties. In fact the resolution of the problem up to that point equals an absolute value of zero. If “a=b” and both are equal to 1 then “a-b” is the same as 1-1=0 but dividing any number, even zero itself, by zero (0/0 as is done here) is not allowed because it can lead to absurdities just like this if your not carefull.

This is fraught with problems. For exapmles, you conveniently step from the previous line to a+b=b and then use the original axiom where a=b. But that can't apply in your final equation because it would produce a 0/0 in the line above it which is undefined.

You've gotta be careful when you go and simplify and square numbers. You discard negative solutions and get rid of singularity points (i.e. 0/0 or infinity/0).

That is exactly the point I was making. Your assuming that is my argument. Its not. It is a materialistic argument put forward to try to establish a connection between existence and nonexistence materially. All I did was point out the same problems you just did with materialistic theories like that. In fact you quote me pointing them out but don't worry I have put them in bold print so you won't miss them this time. Do you have any more materialistic arguments you want to inadverdently refute? Are you a closet idealist after all? Or do you really think 0/2= something besides 0?

Og · 06-12-2007, 11:50 AM

Then I don't think we disagree. Sure, I'm an idealist. I don't see how there's a distinction between the two.

And you're right. I didn't read your post closely at all. I didn't really care that much on the whole materialist/idealist things. Either one seems to not make any difference. The result is the same in either case.

Alumno deVerum · 06-12-2007, 11:57 AM

Wow! An honest mod! Far out! And your right it doesn't make much difference at all. The world would behave the same whether it is idealistic or material from our point of view.