EDX - read back - we've covered all that already, but thanks for your input.
No. Some systems are more stable than others, and thus are more likely to exist than others. For example, it is more likely that a hydrogen atom will have its electron in the lowest energy level than in, say, the 5th level. Thus, the former system is more disposed to existance than the latter.1 - So no one thing in the Universe is more disposed to existence than anything else, other than the extraneous influences under which it finds itself, however conducive or otherwise to existence they may be?
No. By definition, nothing exists beyond existance.2 - Have you ever considered that that could equally apply to the Universe itself, in that the governing facts to the whole of existence as we see it, is governed by influences extraneous to existence itself?
I think he's just pursuing that line of thought, taking the theory of evolution and using as an analogy for the universe at large.Ok, but you still seem to be arguing that non biological evolution has a connection to the theory of evolution.
Wiccan_Child said:we don't know the exact nature of reality.
By definition, nothing exists beyond existance.
Wiccan_Child said:I think he's just pursuing that line of thought, taking the theory of evolution and using as an analogy for the universe at large.
They are coming from nowhere. By definition, nothing exists but that which exists. The set of things that exists is called 'existance'. Thus, there is nothing beyond existance.So, when charged particles are blipping into and out of existence within the atom, where are they coming from?
Because the definition of this hypothetical 'non-existant' realm is self-contradictory. Nothing exists in this realm, and the realm itself does not exist. Consider the set E of all things that exist e. The set E' of both existant and non-existant things is therefore:Existence implies non-existence. Why cannot the non-existence be the reality? Perhaps it just needs a different identity?
Perhaps, but asking questions for the sake of asking question (and not for the sake of aquiring knowledge) is a fruitless endeavour; what can be gained?Exploration of concepts and theories - it's the only way we learn, and the only way we end up with more questions and less answers - fun though.
oh, but you do gain knowledge - I do especially from you, and that;s why I end up with more questions and less answers, because you never can get all your questions answered.Wiccan_Child said:Perhaps, but asking questions for the sake of asking question (and not for the sake of aquiring knowledge)
Well, by defining it, you just have.How can something non-existant exist?
more correctly written as:By definition, nothing exists but that which exists
Yes, but you ask questions that are pertinant to the overall discussion. I was just making the distinction between asking questions as a means to an end, and asking questions for their sake alone.oh, but you do gain knowledge - I do especially from you, and that;s why I end up with more questions and less answers, because you never can get all your questions answered.
No. I have defined it as that which does not exist. Therefore, whatever it is, it doesn't exist.Well, by defining it, you just have.
In this case it does: we define it doesn't exist. We can talk about invisible pink unicorns, but that does not mean they necessarily exist. Indeed, an invisible pink unicorn is a logical paradox, and thus cannot exist. Just because we can write down a logical paradox doesn't mean said paradox is possible: by definition, the paradox isn't possible.A simpler analogy is to open the palm of your hand - revealed, nothing ( forget the air and stuff). Nothingness is definable, so is non-existence. Just because physics cannot measure it in any way, does not mean it cannot be.
You are commiting an equivocation fallacy. The word 'nothing' in this context is a not a proper noun denoting a thing, but rather it is a place holder for the absence of a thing. Consider the null set: ∅ = {}. There is nothing in that set. Does that mean the element called 'Nothing' is a member of that set? No. It is a placeholder that we use in the absence of a normal list.Nowhere, as you call it, is non-existence, which has to be by definition, because existence has to be by definition.
To use your phraseology:
more correctly written as:
By defintion, nothing exists BY that which exists.
If you can logically produce it, is that not the same as proving it? Either way, could you 'produce' it now?No, I can't prove it or measure it, but I can logically produce it - it's as good as singularities I reckon.
It was simply a symbolic proof to show that the set of all things both in existance and in non-existance is equal to the set of all things in existance. That is, no thing is in non-existance. More generally, non-existance itself doesn't exist (in the same way as a spherically oblong two-dimensional metallic cardboard-cutout cannot exist, no matter how much we talk about it).Maybe you're good enough to do the maths for me, because I'm bug*er*d if I know what your equation was talking about. (smile)
there is nothing beyond existance.
How many threads do you intend to toddler-why?
Originally Posted by brinny
into what?
i dunno.....haven't given it much thought....
does it cause you pain or anguish?
'We' as individuals do not evolve, but 'we' as a species are evolving into the next generation of individuals. In the grand scheme of things, I have no idea what the descendants of today's humans will look like in tens of thousands of years time. Probably something like this:into what?
Haha, I have a growing suspicion that I'm being tested .Very good explanation Wiccan_Child.
Not necessarily. The rules that govern existance determine what can and cannot exist. And when we say "Things come into existance", we don't mean they come from somwhere. At one time they didn't exist, and at a later time they did exist. And, in all probability, they now cease to exist again.However, let's focus upon "nothing".
This "place" from which something materializes.
You stated:
there is nothing beyond existance.
So, for something to come into existence, then it has to from existence itself, and the instructions to do so equally come from existence.
Since we are talking about existance proper, not just observable existance, I fail to see your point.Furthermore, any instruction to "dematerialize" from existence, is not in fact a removal from existence, but a removal from witnessable existence, in that, to us, it has disappeared.
Again, no. Non-existance is not another dimension or plane of reality. It is not a thing at all. If something does not exist, then it is said to be non-existant. Just because we can describe properties of it does not make it exist: I can show something to be a logical paradox, but that does not mean it exists.Call it what you may, non-existence, another dimension, or de-creation, the fact remains that something that is able to exist, does so from an apparent position of non-existence, and therefore non-existence, exists.
Simple: they don't. What you have described is not what we mean by 'non-existance'. I think you are getting confused between figures of speech and technical terminology.How does a physicist explain that phenomena?
( please, in simple terms so us non-physicists don't suffer the mental gunge! )