Philosophy Now Forum

I agree with this article. Part of it is due to lack of completely satisfying definitions. Of course there are more questions that'll never be solved to everyone's satisfaction:

http://io9.com/8-great-philosophical-qu ... 1570833699

PhilX

Oh, I've solved them alright. I'm just not telling.

I'm tellling, lifting the lid on the astonishing.

1. Why is there something rather than nothing? And why should anything exist at all?

Existence/Totality/The Basis/What IS has to be; must be. Nonexistence/nothing cannot be, for ‘it’ has no properties/quantities; thus, existence has no opposite, and must be so; no option, no choice; it is mandatory, since it cannot come from Nothing.

Therefore, What IS has no beginning and no end, not even a ‘was’ or a ‘will be’; is just is, “ungenerated and deathless”.

It is Not that is dead, although we often try to resurrect ‘it’. Can there be some amount of Nothing, such as a hole or a spacer in Totality? No, Nothing cannot be, thus What IS is continuous.

What IS thus has no creation and no Creator, which is yet another death in the family of wishes, wants, and desires. Philosophers are seekers of truth, and so we have no real fear of encountering Dennet’s universal acid that can eat away our notions.


What about that we can conceive of a lack of anything as a possible state of affairs?

‘Nothing’ has no state, no affairs, no where, no what, no when, no arena for there to be a lack in; however, if one still want to suppose it, then, if it were such, somehow, then there still wouldn’t be anything, yet, there is something. Case closed, doubly.

But, we may lapse, being human, and claim such that there is Nothing outside of the universe or the Cosmos or What IS… This cannot be. There isn’t any Zero/Nothing. We just can’t have ‘it’. This, by the way, makes that a One, such as total solidity, cannot be either, and is out, along with complete vacuity. Can’t have a One with Zero outside it, nor a Zero with a One inside it. This suggests a kind of Everything of all possible quanta between the One and Zero boundaries.

‘Nothing’ truly means nothing, If some capability, potential, or possibility is assigned to it, to, say, become something, such as perhaps as separated positive and negative sum-things that cancel out to zero, then it wasn’t a Nothing in the first place, and so this does not work to show an absolute Nothing amounting to anything.

One might even say in a strange way that Nothing is a nonexistent absolute, making ‘it’ to indicate a boundary, such as to the fractional that can never truly go to zero, perhaps even as that the temperature cannot go to 0 Kelvin. Might it be that Stillness, too, cannot be? And of course I should add here that a One is the other nonexistent absolute.

So, we have gained a truth and a proof from philosophy, that What IS has to be ever—ex niliho is gone, although it is more like a truth that then requires no proof. It is then no longer a paradox that there is literally nothing to make anything of. As for secondary, composite things, such as atoms, we note that they are easy to come by, there being humongous amounts of them.

Might the ultimate something be a substance such as a string, a quark, or a wave, which by the way are ubiquitous in nature, or is it more nebulous, such as an all-at-once superposition, possibility, probability, or capability?

We cannot say at the moment, but whichever, it appears to provide for anything and everything possible if it is of the nebulous kind hinted at above; else, if of the substance kind, then it is a mandatory default such as that it must be a simple, continuous something/function with no parts. In either case, though, it has no point at which any specific design or direction could have been imparted to it in the first place, for there is no first place or time and therefore not anything outside of it or before it.

We might turn our thoughts to the nature of such a forever system, granting perhaps some strange insights such as that which it needs is already there, resolving more paradoxes such as that light needs matter to form it and matter needs light to form it.


Does the manifestation/transformation of the basis/What IS into matter/energy require space as a kind of existent with volume as its only quantity to be in?

Being that it IS, in the present tense only, I’d say no, but if one wants to have ‘space’ as real as a place, I’d guess that ‘space’ consists of stuff/matter/energy, with no separate empty space with volume to that it is in, but here I go beyond the question into whether there is only a ‘now’, although Leo covers this quite well.


2. Is our universe real?

Never mind virtual realities and simulations, for what makes no difference truly is no difference! For example, music is music, and that is the message, no matter its implementation, such as by an mp3 player or by a live performance. So, there are degrees of realness, but the bottommost basis must be Real, and so what is of it is real as well.


I still wish to get into the message versus the messenger mode.

Only phenomena are accessible, although methods are still interesting to posit, such as that matter exhibits a curious balance, such as that there is antimatter and matter, necessarily opposite in charge, which could be from opposite wave amplitudes, energy being of wave frequency, extension and dimension being of wave lengths, and so forth, but, as you see, implementations are more for science than philosophy, although the latter can provide direction.

Why a wave? It is a simple continuous function. It does, though hint at why there is the symmetry of three stable particles, the electron, the proton, and the photon, which would be that there are only those three ways to make them, as centers of oscillations.

And the other balances: they are such as the negative potential energy of gravity canceling out the positive kinetic energy of stuff, a possible diverse, and too many more to be listed.


OK. My point is more now, after your answer, that the brain paints a secondhand but still useful face upon the true reality that is more directly available to the senses, such as the color red.

Yes, we’re living a a kind of a distance in a world that is truly only within our heads, yet another starling revelation.


Well, anyway, I digress somewhat, although for reason of showing degrees of real, since I’ve already answered the question in the first paragraph, and will say more here—that what is real is of degree, such as that matter is composite and thus is of a secondary, tertiary, or more degree of real; however, all that which is of the really Real must still be called real in some sense.


Next time:

3. Do we have free will?

(Beware! This could be the most unwished for answer of all the secrets of What IS.)

I can answer all of these with closure and good rationale. I disagree that these are unanswerable. I began doing just this and then realized I'd be doing myself a disfavor and possibly others by doing so as some of what it may result in would be abused....a kind of intellectual nuclear bomb! I'll wait unless I can figure out how this could be explained 'safely', if possible.

None of these are questions at all, except one. They are simply the bleating of scared people confused about their own existence.

There is only one meaningful question. 7. What is the best moral system. In my view the answer has to be one that is capable of defining the sort of society you want, and flexible enough to respond to the fact that that answer to that is ever changing.

All the other points are just inappropriate questions based on a fundamental confusion about terms and our existential reality.

I agree with the above comments as well. Why is there something rather than nothing is a particularly meaningless question but the stupidest question ever asked in science would have to be this one.

Q. Why do the laws of physics which we have describe the universe we observe instead of some other universe?

A. Because if they didn't we'd change the fucking things.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:None of these are questions at all, except one. They are simply the bleating of scared people confused about their own existence.

There is only one meaningful question. 7. What is the best moral system. In my view the answer has to be one that is capable of defining the sort of society you want, and flexible enough to respond to the fact that that answer to that is ever changing.

All the other points are just inappropriate questions based on a fundamental confusion about terms and our existential reality.

I have absolutely zero 'fear' of my own existence but ask them all. I was going to mention that in fact number 7 was the only one that has the truest difficulty to resolve as morals are too relative as we see with economics and politics. The others are resolvable but I believe they are intentionally preferred not to be attended to as any certainty in them can threaten a society that cannot handle them. People fear a world where nothingness could be proven as a source for all as it implies a Nihilism that makes people psychologically scared; People fear on both extremes whether we are somehow more or less real without realizing that we could be both an original world OR a product of some other one without a difference; both 'free will' AND determinism operate but the ones for both extremes more often think in the same bias to believe we are somehow unique and special; the God question could be both 'true' and 'false' in light of the concern in question two and allow for a logical place for inconsistent as well as consistent worlds; life after death is locally indeterminate in practice but theoretically possible and perhaps probable but not necessarily by any means that some would think it should be (like a religious interpretation of it); Objectivity is an abused and misunderstood term that lacks a fair justification over subjectivity; Numbers and abstract generalizations that form the basis of any law require accepting them as real or should beg one abandon using them at all to remain credible. I've already mentioned how morality is too relative but it can have certain definitiveness practical solutions if one maps them appropriately to the goals of the areas involved.

Lastly, however, I would ADD the question of consciousness in this lineup because it has such certain hints at what much of the above means.

Obvious Leo wrote:I agree with the above comments as well. Why is there something rather than nothing is a particularly meaningless question but the stupidest question ever asked in science would have to be this one.

Q. Why do the laws of physics which we have describe the universe we observe instead of some other universe?

A. Because if they didn't we'd change the fucking things.

Well if we should take your queue on this, let's return to using Roman numerals instead. I find this equally absurd and already KNOW that without getting this, physics and other philosophical questions could not ever be resolvable. I still can't figure out how people here don't seem to recognize their own subjective experience of being born of nothingness as even a hint that nature too would require this.

I did like this article though if only for its presentation of the issues that I completely relate to. Each question and the way the author handled it using examples are the same issues I interpreted as significant.

But I think it needs that ninth topic, "consciousness' as its own topic. But all of them are interdependent on certain common themes.

Scott Mayers wrote: I still can't figure out how people here don't seem to recognize their own subjective experience of being born of nothingness

Do you seriously claim to have a subjective experience of being born of nothingness? Why don't you try and explain what it was like to somebody like me who can't actually remember being born at all. Not that I'll believe a word of it.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote: I still can't figure out how people here don't seem to recognize their own subjective experience of being born of nothingness

Do you seriously claim to have a subjective experience of being born of nothingness? Why don't you try and explain what it was like to somebody like me who can't actually remember being born at all. Not that I'll believe a word of it.

So you're admitting a time when you cannot remember anything....like nothing?

Scott Mayers wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:None of these are questions at all, except one. They are simply the bleating of scared people confused about their own existence.

There is only one meaningful question. 7. What is the best moral system. In my view the answer has to be one that is capable of defining the sort of society you want, and flexible enough to respond to the fact that that answer to that is ever changing.

All the other points are just inappropriate questions based on a fundamental confusion about terms and our existential reality.

I have absolutely zero 'fear' of my own existence but ask them all. I was going to mention that in fact number 7 was the only one that has the truest difficulty to resolve as morals are too relative as we see with economics and politics. The others are resolvable but I believe they are intentionally preferred not to be attended to as any certainty in them can threaten a society that cannot handle them. People fear a world where nothingness could be proven as a source for all as it implies a Nihilism that makes people psychologically scared; People fear on both extremes whether we are somehow more or less real without realizing that we could be both an original world OR a product of some other one without a difference; both 'free will' AND determinism operate but the ones for both extremes more often think in the same bias to believe we are somehow unique and special; the God question could be both 'true' and 'false' in light of the concern in question two and allow for a logical place for inconsistent as well as consistent worlds; life after death is locally indeterminate in practice but theoretically possible and perhaps probable but not necessarily by any means that some would think it should be (like a religious interpretation of it); Objectivity is an abused and misunderstood term that lacks a fair justification over subjectivity; Numbers and abstract generalizations that form the basis of any law require accepting them as real or should beg one abandon using them at all to remain credible. I've already mentioned how morality is too relative but it can have certain definitiveness practical solutions if one maps them appropriately to the goals of the areas involved.

Lastly, however, I would ADD the question of consciousness in this lineup because it has such certain hints at what much of the above means.

I'd not meant to pretend it has anything to do with individual fear. All these questions were provided for you my thousands of years of religious fear and addressed somewhat more rationally by philosophy.

Scott Mayers wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote: I still can't figure out how people here don't seem to recognize their own subjective experience of being born of nothingness

Do you seriously claim to have a subjective experience of being born of nothingness? Why don't you try and explain what it was like to somebody like me who can't actually remember being born at all. Not that I'll believe a word of it.

So you're admitting a time when you cannot remember anything....like nothing?

Remembering nothing, is not remembering at all. You approach this question like not remembering is a thing. So no, you cannot admit to a time when you cannot remember anything, as that is a time of no experience.

Good [My] morning Hobbes,

I was wondering if anybody else was awake...

Scott Mayers wrote:Good [My] morning Hobbes,

I was wondering if anybody else was awake...

I'm watching the F1 from Spa. The time is not nearly 2pm. I'm just about awake!

PoeticUniverse wrote: Philosophers are seekers of truth, and so we have no real fear of encountering Dennet’s universal acid that can eat away our notions.

I don't believe this is true.

So long as they only have to believe in nonsense like survival of the fittest or that the human species is infected by ideas that spread like cancer they're willing to pursue any line of thought. But suggest that skyhooks are real and humans are in(af)fected by a language that really has been confused and they scatter like rabbits before a wolf pack. Suggest that language provides a perspective that can warp our perception of reality and even Science Itself, and theologians will run with the rabbits. Suggest that science is seen as models that have no validity and math is never properly applied and everyone is gone to the briar patches.

It's not the rabbits who are slower who fail to reproduce, it's the ones that won't run at all or those which can't be saved by even divine speed. There's no such thing as "fitness". Every animal on the face of the earth tries to maintain itself within optimal operating parameters except countless millions of confused humans.

Sky hooks are real, change in species is real, intelligence is a "feeling" generated by language.