OK, here's the serious analysis:
lifegazer said:
(1) Experience cannot arise from absolutely nothing.
Agreed - nothing comes from nothing, nothing causes nothing. Experience - however you define it - must arise from some thing.
(2) Therefore, Something exists - as opposed to 'nothing'.
Also agreed.
(3) If existence is indivisible, then it is absolutely singular. No explanation needed.
Undetermined. Required: definitions of 'existence', 'indivisible', and 'singular'. However, based upon prior posts, 'existence' is assumed to mean 'all that is'; in which case, it is necessarily singular as such; if we propose multiple existences, then we cannot define 'existence' as 'all that is'. Are we substituting 'existence' for 'universe'? For 'reality'? Even in context of your prior posts, we cannot determine for certain what you are meaning - based upon premise 1) and 2), it
seems as if you might be referring to 'that which experiences' - in which case, it is clear that 'that which experiences' is certainly divisible - and therefore, not singular, according to your statement. Again, though, this relies upon your definition of 'indivisible'. Finally, is 'singular' to mean 'alone' or 'one-dimensional'? Unique? Homogenous?
IN other words, to make a long-winded reply shorter (yeah, right) - what does 3) even mean?
(4) If existence is indivisible, then it is boundless. Why? Because a singular existence cannot be bounded by something else (contradicts the prior conclusion)...
First, based upon the fact that SO MANY terms here lack clear definition, I'd have to say this statement is uncertain. For one, we know not whether or not existence is indivisible - that is a premise of this argument, but unproven as such. For another, 'boundless' is another undefined concept. Generally, one uses 'boundless' when referring to an infinite set. After all, a set with no boundary extends infinitely in any direction. However, as related to 'existence', if we say that it is infinite, we have to closely examine the definition of indivisible. If, by indivisible, we mean unfragmentable, then there is no problem - existence is infinite and unfragmentable, and singular (the only 'existence' that is). This definition does not exclude existence from having discernable regions within it, or component pieces of it, etc. It merely means no piece of existence may be removed from existence - a restating of the conservation of matter and energy, it seems. And since we can discern regions within existence, and components of existence, this would seem consistant with our perceptions.
If, however, we are referring to a definition of 'boundless' to simply mean 'nothing is beyond it', then we are referring to a possibly finite existence, but one that must somehow be also recursive - folded in upon itself - as Einstein predicted. No matter in what direction within existence you go, you will wind up back where you started if you travel long enough... which allows for a finite, but boundless, universe. It is next to impossible to imagine what a model of such a universe would look like, because any concept we have would have 'edges' and 'boundaries' after a fashion - the 'blank space' around the paper, so to speak - which such a reality simply could not have. It is unimaginable to us, and therefore should not, via common sense, be possible; yet that is precisely what such indication would mean.
There are also problems for an infinite universe scenario as well, such as the problem of infinite mean mass... but there are also hypotheses that address these problems as well.
Nevertheless, based on a number of possible definitions, this still poses no potential problem - an 'indivisible' universe being 'boundless'.
and 'nothing' is incapable of embracing (extending itself around) any finite entity.
This is nonsensical. If an entity is finite, 'nothing' can embrace it - in fact, a singular entity, unless infinite, must be embraced by 'nothing'.
(5) Since existence is boundless (
whether indivisible or not!!!), then 'nothing'
no longer has any significance or meaning with regards philosophical discussion pertaining to "reality".
You mean absolutely nothing, right? It never had much signifigance anyway - nothing is just the lack of something.
If you want to get technical, 'nothing' in the absolute sense doesn't even exist within our reality - spacetime is everywhere, and as noted in other threads, spacetime is 'something'. So when we refer to nothing, we do so not in the absolute sense, but in the sense of 'a location in spacetime in which a matter/energy event is not occuring' - within reality, that is.
Beyond it - if there is a 'beyond' - we cannot say what exists, or does not exist.
I.e., 'nothing' is a concept which has now (31/03/05 01.29 am GMT+1) officially become obsolete and extinct.
Only if you are the officer of concepts - which you aren't. In fact, no authority exists for 'obsolete, extinct concepts' - which is why we could conceivably see a return to Newtonian space theory at any time. Remember, some folks still think the Earth is flat.
In other words, 'nothing' has no meaning. It's a false concept.
Wrong. In other words, 'nothing' cannot mean 'absolutely nothing' as referenced within existence, but can certainly have other meanings.
'Nothing' no longer has ANY meaning. It's just a concept that exists within our minds. But it has no philosophical significance with regards to existence or reality or causality.
Anybody who procalims that an effect can come from 'nothing' is a philosophical bozo.
Wrong, as demonstrated above; however, there is evidence that effects can come from spacetime with no other determining event preceeding it... namely, apparently spontaneous generation of particles. Keep in mind, at this point in time, we don't know if there is a cause for this... so labelling such generation 'acausal' is a bit presumptive at this point.
Next time you use the word 'nothing' as an explanation for anything, realise that you are talking through your ass.
Btw, that includes the use of the word 'acausal' for EFFECTS that are PERCEIVED within awareness.
{yawn}
The above argument is a proof that there must be some real/definite cause for every effect. Which means that there is no such thing as an acausal effect (second highly significant fact of the night). Which means that acausality cannot be applied with regards ANY effect. Which means that it can only be applied with regards a PRIMAL-CAUSE.
WRONG.
By your own definitions, 'acausal' is meaningless in all cases - which means we cannot define any cause as 'acausal' either. A primal-cause cannot come from nothing... unless that cause is, itself, infinite. Since an infinite thing must also be singular - nothing could possibly exist beyond an infinite thing - then, by prior definition, any so-called 'primal-cause' must, by definition, be 'existence'.
So, what you are trying to say, is that 'existence' causes 'everything within existence'? Well, I hate to say it, but that's a big ol' "DUH".
Btw, a primal-cause cannot be perceived since perception is an effect.
That statement is completely insensible. What does it mean? The primal-cause cannot cause an effect of perception?
OF course, lifegazer doesn't seem to realize yet - after all these posts - that perception (an effect) is a receptive effect, not a transmittive affector. Hence, we can certainly receive a perception of a so-called 'primal cause'.
Do I need to write another essay or do you get the point?
No, you need to clarify THIS essay. It seems very poorly constructed. You seem to have something, up until the end... Keep working on it.
