Are we evolving?

[Sinful2B]

EDX - read back - we've covered all that already, but thanks for your input.

 

[Edx]

EDX - read back - we've covered all that already, but thanks for your input.

Ok, but you still seem to be arguing that non biological evolution has a connection to the theory of evolution.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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. 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.
However, if we are talking of the fundaments of reality themselves (fundamental particles, energy, etc), then the same occurs: some are more likely to exist than others. Of course, this is less certain, since we don't know the exact nature of reality.

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?

No. By definition, nothing exists beyond existance.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ok, but you still seem to be arguing that non biological evolution has a connection to the theory of evolution.

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.

 

[Sinful2B]

Hi and welcome

we don't know the exact nature of reality.

ah yes - I watched a programme about this a couple of weeks ago on TV - highly complicated stuff for a non-physicist.

By definition, nothing exists beyond existance.

So, when charged particles are blipping into and out of existence within the atom, where are they coming from?
Existence implies non-existence. Why cannot the non-existence be the reality? Perhaps it just needs a different identity?

 

[Sinful2B]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edx
Ok, but you still seem to be arguing that non biological evolution has a connection to the theory of evolution.

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.

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.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So, when charged particles are blipping into and out of existence within the atom, where are they coming from?

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.

Existence implies non-existence. Why cannot the non-existence be the reality? Perhaps it just needs a different identity?

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:

I.e., E' = E.
That is, there is nothing that isn't in existance, or to put it another way, the only things that exist are those things in existance. I don't know how to make this more clear; I would have thought it self-explanitory. How can something non-existant exist?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

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?

 

[Sinful2B]

Perhaps, but asking questions for the sake of asking question (and not for the sake of aquiring knowledge)

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.

How can something non-existant exist?

Well, by defining it, you just have.
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.
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:

By definition, nothing exists but that which exists

more correctly written as:
By defintion, nothing exists BY that which exists.

No, I can't prove it or measure it, but I can logically produce it - it's as good as singularities I reckon.
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)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

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.

Well, by defining it, you just have.

No. I have defined it as that which does not exist. Therefore, whatever it is, it doesn't exist.

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.

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.
Likewise, it is a logical paradox to have something exist outside of existance.

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.

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.
E.g., in the statement "the numbers 2, 3, and 67, are in the set of integers", the list is "The numbers 2, 3, and 67". If the set in question is empty, then the list too would be empty, and so, instead of writing "The numbers are in the set", we give that abscence a name: nothing.
That does not mean nothingness itself exists. It's a rather trivial semantical fallacy, to be honest.

No, I can't prove it or measure it, but I can logically produce it - it's as good as singularities I reckon.

If you can logically produce it, is that not the same as proving it? Either way, could you 'produce' it now?

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)

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).

Who'dve thought this thread would go on to be a discourse on the nature of non-existance?

 

[Edx]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edx
Ok, but you still seem to be arguing that non biological evolution has a connection to the theory of evolution.

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.

Well no you arent just asking questions, you're just wrong. Do you accept that the word evolution and the theory of evolution are different things?

Ed

 

[brinny]

into what?

 

[atomweaver]

into what?

How many threads do you intend to toddler-why?

 

[Tomk80]

into what?

Homo sapiens version 2.0

 

[Sinful2B]

Very good explanation Wiccan_Child.

Almost pushed to the limit I think.

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.
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.
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.

How does a physicist explain that phenomena?
( please, in simple terms so us non-physicists don't suffer the mental gunge! )

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
into what?

How many threads do you intend to toddler-why?

i dunno.....haven't given it much thought....does it cause you pain or anguish?

 

[atomweaver]

Originally Posted by brinny
into what?



i dunno.....haven't given it much thought....

Yep. The toddler-why doesn't require much thought.

does it cause you pain or anguish?

Nawp, ask away, if its all you've got. We'd just rather engage brinny in discussion and/or debate. I have raised enough toddlers to fully expect that the toddler-why won't typically yield a whole lot of intellectual "meat"...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

into what?

'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:

 

[Nitron]

For the Emperor!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Very good explanation Wiccan_Child.

Haha, I have a growing suspicion that I'm being tested .

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.

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.

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.

Since we are talking about existance proper, not just observable existance, I fail to see your point.

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.

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.

How does a physicist explain that phenomena?
( please, in simple terms so us non-physicists don't suffer the mental gunge! )

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.