There's no such thing as 'nothing'.

[uruk]

In other words, "The universe started with a big bang" has absolutely zero philosophical merit.

Who ever said the universe had to follow any of our silly notions?
Oh wait, all you wags who claim the universe is here for our benefit.
And philosophy is only good for a lively debate. It makes no difference to the realities of our day to day. (Unless of course your a loon on a crusade or trying to get published)

 

[P.S.A.]

As I shall now try to limit myself to doing, I will respond only by pointing to this thread I have started here;

Lifegazer; should we simply ignore him?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54736

 

[Dan Beaird]

Hey, Robin wasn't kidding. The universe (or "reality", if you prefer) is a very complicated place and the majority of scientists do a poor job of disseminating what we do know out into the general public.
...
I conceed that there are limits to what we can know (damn you, Heisenberg!), but I see no reason to think there is ultimately a limit to what we can understand. It's a fine line, but an important one, I think.

I spent a little time this morning looking up M theory, which also required that I read up a bit on string theory and the way that all of this ties back in to Newton and Einstein. I freely admit that the maths were way beyond my level, but I got a general understanding of what they were talking about. Essentially how our understanding is being continually refined and the assorted theoretical models eventually coalesce into unifying theories as the discrepencies between them are resolved (naturally enough resulting in new problems). I have a better appreciation for the kind of dedication and intellect required to advance knowledge.

I fully agree with your comment on the difference between knowledge and understanding, it is indeed an important point.

Thanks again

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Ok, lets dissect this, it will take just three easy steps to prove your pitiful logical skills:

(1) Experience cannot arise from absolutely nothing.

This could be a corollary of "experience arise from something", it is a badly designed first premise.

(2) Therefore, Something exists - as opposed to 'nothing'.

This is not a conclusion, but a tautology, because it is implied in 1)

(3) If existence is indivisible, then it is absolutely singular. No explanation needed.

There is no logical continuity between 1) and 2) with 3) you introduce, from nowhere, the "indivisible" and "singular" concepts. If anything, you should first present your arguments (premises and conclusion) about why is it "indivisible".

Thats enough. It is not worth my time to continue because, as every body knows, you dont want to learn, you just want us to be amazed at your "superior intellect".

 

[Throg]

Anyway, nobody argues that we perceive things through our senses, this is no news.

I had a Philosophy tutor who did actually "argue" that we had direct experience of the Universe indpendent of any perceptual apparatus and he is not unique in adopting this position. I put the quotation marks around the word argue because none of his arguments conformed to my understanding of the word "argument." He seemed, otherwise, a completely rational man.

I agree with everything else in your post, I just raise this as an example of the fact that you can always find some people who will "argue" any position.

 

[Throg]

Re: Re: There's no such thing as 'nothing'.

*Filip grabs the bait!!*

Even though such a concept as NOTHING may in itself seem meaningless (as we automatically attribute certain kinds of qualties to it and the 'it' isn't supposed to even exist), I would argue that the idea is philosophically very useful. It's useful because beyond the literal meaning there lies another, perhaps more "philosophical" meaning in my opinion. Obviously we had to get the idea from somewhere!

Does anyone think that our basic 'every day' understanding of nothing extends into some subtle aspect of actual reality or is it merely a concept based on memetics? In other words, does the idea of real nothingness somehow fit into reality? Why is it that I can almost 'see' nothingness in my mind's eye if there is no substance behind what I'm trying to 'see'?

If you close your eyes and think of nothing (as you see it), does it come out as a literal definition in your mind? A mental image... or a feeling? What do you think of when you think of nothing?

Curious to see what the replies are... [/B]

It seems to me that all of these examples rely on an appeal to intuition. I think that this is essentially what Sartre did, at much greater length in "Being and Nothingness." If you haven't read it, I can highly recommend it given your interest. From my point of view, it said nothing about reality but quite a lot about phenomenology.

As to why there seems to be a being to nothingness, I would suggest this is an artefact of the way our perceptions are processed at a neurological level. There are structures in the retina and in the visual cortex that respond to differences in patterns of light such that difference can seem to be a thing in itself rather than a comparison between things. This occurs at such a fundamental level of perceptual processing that it should not be surprising that we find strong intuitive appeal in the idea that the difference between the presence of something and the absence of something implies and can produce the sensation of the presence of nothingness.