Paradox of irreducibility

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You can again have nothing net to experience unless irreducible things persist to exist after popping in. So the question is why they should persist to exist?

That's kind of like the "Why is there something rather than nothing?" question, which seems to assume that the "default" is that there'd be nothing, and we need to explain why there isn't. But why would that be the default? Likewise, why would it be the fault that an irreducible thing that popped into existence shouldn't persist for any arbitrary length of time?

The "default" should be noting rather than something. Why? Because something should exist forever if the "default" is something rather than nothing which this is problematic. Something cannot simply exist eternally. This simply means that you need a beginning to allow something to exist.

Whatever you say Stephen Hawking.

[Terrapin Station]

You can again have nothing net to experience unless irreducible things persist to exist after popping in. So the question is why they should persist to exist?

That's kind of like the "Why is there something rather than nothing?" question, which seems to assume that the "default" is that there'd be nothing, and we need to explain why there isn't. But why would that be the default? Likewise, why would it be the fault that an irreducible thing that popped into existence shouldn't persist for any arbitrary length of time?

The "default" should be noting rather than something. Why? Because something should exist forever if the "default" is something rather than nothing which this is problematic. Something cannot simply exist eternally. This simply means that you need a beginning to allow something to exist.

Why would the default need to be that things exist forever rather than existing for a finite time? You're assuming, for some reason, that things should either not exist or they should exist "eternally." Why are you assuming that?

[bahman]

Why would the default need to be that things exist forever rather than existing for a finite time?

You're assuming, for some reason, that things should either not exist or they should exist "eternally." Why are you assuming that?

Things could exist for a period of time but nothingness (default) is the place that everything starts from. This means that there is a beginning considering the fact that things exist right now.

[Terrapin Station]

Why would the default need to be that things exist forever rather than existing for a finite time?

You're assuming, for some reason, that things should either not exist or they should exist "eternally." Why are you assuming that?

Things could exist for a period of time but nothingness (default) is the place that everything starts from. This means that there is a beginning considering the fact that things exist right now.

Wait, for one, "default" doesn't refer to initial state, but to the state something will return to or tend towards in the absence of (external) forces acting otherwise.

[bahman]

Why would the default need to be that things exist forever rather than existing for a finite time?

You're assuming, for some reason, that things should either not exist or they should exist "eternally." Why are you assuming that?

Things could exist for a period of time but nothingness (default) is the place that everything starts from. This means that there is a beginning considering the fact that things exist right now.

Wait, for one, "default" doesn't refer to initial state, but to the state something will return to or tend towards in the absence of (external) forces acting otherwise.

I used "default" as initial state. Sorry for misunderstanding.

[Terrapin Station]

I used "default" as initial state. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Okay, but the point remains that there's no reason to assume that existents will tend towards either not existing or existing eternally rather than existing for some arbitrary, finite length of time.

[bahman]

I used "default" as initial state. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Okay, but the point remains that there's no reason to assume that existents will tend towards either not existing or existing eternally rather than existing for some arbitrary, finite length of time.

Things could exist for some finite length of time too.

[Terrapin Station]

I used "default" as initial state. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Okay, but the point remains that there's no reason to assume that existents will tend towards either not existing or existing eternally rather than existing for some arbitrary, finite length of time.

Things could exist for some finite length of time too.

Right, but you were asking why they would persist, as if that would be some mystery, as if them not persisting wouldn't be a mystery to you.

[bahman]

Okay, but the point remains that there's no reason to assume that existents will tend towards either not existing or existing eternally rather than existing for some arbitrary, finite length of time.

Things could exist for some finite length of time too.

Right, but you were asking why they would persist, as if that would be some mystery, as if them not persisting wouldn't be a mystery to you.

Well, I just cannot find a solid argument against persistence since things to me empirically exist. We could have net zero if things does not persist. I however have problem with persistence since it is not a time reversal thing. I mean we have nothing in our basket if we reverse the time so there is a relation between direction of time and persistence. What does cause that? I don't know.

[Terrapin Station]

Well, I just cannot find a solid argument against persistence since things to me empirically exist. We could have net zero if things does not persist. I however have problem with persistence since it is not a time reversal thing. I mean we have nothing in our basket if we reverse the time so there is a relation between direction of time and persistence. What does cause that? I don't know.

I'm not sure I understand anything there that seems like a dilemma to you.

[bahman]

Well, I just cannot find a solid argument against persistence since things to me empirically exist. We could have net zero if things does not persist. I however have problem with persistence since it is not a time reversal thing. I mean we have nothing in our basket if we reverse the time so there is a relation between direction of time and persistence. What does cause that? I don't know.

I'm not sure I understand anything there that seems like a dilemma to you.

Physical theories are time reversal. I don't know what is the reason for persistence of things in existence since it obviously break time reversality. I hope I am clear now.

[Terrapin Station]

Well, I just cannot find a solid argument against persistence since things to me empirically exist. We could have net zero if things does not persist. I however have problem with persistence since it is not a time reversal thing. I mean we have nothing in our basket if we reverse the time so there is a relation between direction of time and persistence. What does cause that? I don't know.

I'm not sure I understand anything there that seems like a dilemma to you.

Physical theories are time reversal. I don't know what is the reason for persistence of things in existence since it obviously break time reversality. I hope I am clear now.

Ah. The thing is that I don't agree that the idea of time reversibility makes any ontological sense though.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

@terrapin
He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. You do realise that don't you?

[Terrapin Station]

I try to be a crow(bar) sometimes.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You can't 'know' this! This is a philosophy forum, dealing with "knowledge" above all things. There are things that humans cannot 'know' currently. If you spoke of probability that would have been acceptable.

This is a philosophical argument: Things cannot be divisible into infinitum because it takes forever to divide things into its constitute hence it takes forever to build things up based on constitute.

Infinitum and forever are synonyms so:

If things were divisible to infinity,
then it would take infinity to divide things into their constituents,
thus the converse would be true.

Yes, this sounds completely reasonable to me.

You see, you can't say that the above, in blue, can't be the case, because your ignorance precludes it.
Why? Because you don't know everything!