A thread about "Nothing"

[partinobodycular]

Don't ask me! I'm no solipsist .. and neither is the MDR hypothesis, in any way, Solipsism. Solipsism is a dead end and is yet another useless philosophy, IMO.

Coming from the MDR hypothesis perspective however, I'd simply answer: Ask someone qualified, who can demonstrate how they acquired that knowledge, or acquire that knowledge for yourself.

Perhaps it's just my solipsistic mindset, but you seem to be holding a rather contradictory position. On the one hand you seem to be questioning the existence of things independent of your own mind, yet you seem to have no problem accepting that other minds exist independent of yours. So why do you accept that some things exist independent of your mind, but other things don't?

Or am I confused?

 

[SelfSim]

Perhaps it's just my solipsistic mindset, but you seem to be holding a rather contradictory position. On the one hand you seem to be questioning the existence of things independent of your own mind, yet you seem to have no problem accepting that other minds exist independent of yours. So why do you accept that some things exist independent of your mind, but other things don't?

Or am I confused?

The latter ..

The 'M's in MDR and MIR, refers to any instance mind of type: human. Other minds (ie: other than one's own) are therefore included in that. The only slight exclusions might be delusional (or unhealthy) human minds, which aren't capable of rationalisations.

As I mentioned, this is not about Solipsism .. its about science!

 

[partinobodycular]

The latter ..

The 'M's in MDR and MIR, refers to any instance mind of type: human. Other minds (ie: other than one's own) are therefore included in that. The only slight exclusions might be delusional (or unhealthy) human minds, which aren't capable of rationalisations.

Okay, but this still seems contradictory to me. You seem to hold that other 'things' don't exist independent of your own mind, but other 'minds' do. Why the seeming discrepancy?

Also, how does this then explain how these minds can create something, (a college textbook on advanced mathematics for example) about which none of them have any prior knowledge. Where does that knowledge originate? To say that you got it from another mind begs the question of where that other mind got it. Simply kicking the can down the road doesn't explain where the knowledge originates.

I'm not purposely trying to be argumentative. These are questions that I have had to ask myself about solipsism. Specifically, how this hypothesis explains the existence of reality.

 

[Halbhh]

the common idea that the Mind Independent Reality (MIR) belief is part of science, a requirement of science,

There may be semantics involved here -- what you mean by the words you use, and what I mean when I use the exact same words, like "independent", being 2 unalike meanings -- that's why I wrote a post to you where you could respond about what you do agree with, to help clear up semantics problems. (Otherwise you'd end up tilting at windmills at times, simply because of semantic differences.)

I know this discussion with someone with a physics background must try your patience.

@partinobodycular you should find this interesting.

When humanity doesn't yet know something new-to-us part of Nature exists, it nevertheless does exist, we often discover later in time.

There are endless examples of things existing before we have any idea of them existing.

They are 'independent' of our thinking/understanding/knowledge, we see later on, once we find them for the first time. ('independent' -- they existed before we had even any idea at all, even an hypothesis, that some such thing could exist...)

Black holes are a good example, because they are so unlike other things. They are not merely part of a broad class with many other items.

They were a radically strange new thing, and nothing else seems like them, so the first prediction of them was exotic.

We now know they existed before we even had the slightest idea anything like such could exist.

When did we first get an inkling such a thing could exist?

While Einstein's General Relativity implied that black holes would exist in a much more precise and causally convincing way than before, but even after GR arrived, it was still very many decades before evidence of one was found.

We now have even direct observations, and understand they are a confirmed part of Nature, as we were taught before ever finding one.

We were instructed they would exist before we found one, instructed by physics.

It seems the first person to use the physics ideas of the day, in 1783, to think of them was a country parson/scientist.

John Michell: Country Parson Described Black Holes in 1783 | AMNH

When physics developed theories that implied objects like black holes would exist, that was an interesting moment.

Because none had been found nor imagined before.

We found part of Nature by discovering part of how Nature works.

 

[SelfSim]

There may be semantics involved here -- what you mean by the words you use, and what I mean when I use the exact same words, like "independent", being 2 unalike meanings -- that's why I wrote a post to you where you could respond about what you do agree with, to help clear up semantics problems. (Otherwise you'd end up tilting at windmills at times, simply because of semantic differences.)

Ok then, let me ask: what do you mean when you use the term? (Apologies if if you think you've already posted that .. (its ok to link to the post if you wish me to focus specifically on particulars).

The way its used in the MIR/MDR hypothesis, is intended to mean something asserted as 'truly existing', without any minds being present, anywhere, or at any time. IOW the 'Reality' concept does not depend on any minds giving it any meaning, whatsoever .. (which is of course, completely nonsensical .. other than by way of just pretending it does .. that is, believing it does).

I know this discussion with someone with a physics background must try your patience.

Not at all .. you wanna get into Physics? Go straight ahead. You should not assume my background is independent of formally acquired Physics knowledge.

When humanity doesn't yet know something new-to-us part of Nature exists, it nevertheless does exist, we often discover later in time.

And that's still a belief until you cite the objective test which can demonstrate that, as it depends entirely on what you mean by 'exists'. 'The how' you actually arrived at that meaning being the critical part there.

The rest of your post to @partinobodycular is just repetition of that claim .. (interspersed with clear evidence of mind dependence).

 

[Halbhh]

And that's still a belief until you cite the objective test which can demonstrate that, as it depends entirely on what you mean by 'exists'. 'The how' you actually arrived at that meaning being the critical part there.

Something never seen or imagined, directly predicted by a theory....to our surprise. And then later found.

The Black Hole example I just gave is a perfect example of what I'm talking about: something entirely unexpected, not like anything else, which arose purely from physics theory alone, as a new thing directly predicted by the theory.

And centuries later we finally observed one, showing that aspect of the theory entirely correct.

Showing the theory actually aligns perfectly with actual objective external reality.,

 

[SelfSim]

Just looked up the definition of 'Black Hole' in the Oxford Languages online dictionary. The first thing to notice is there are multiple meanings (context dependent) .. that's classic evidence for the mind dependence of 'what a black hole is' .. aka: mind dependent.
If black holes were mind independent, then why would there be multiple ambiguities there?Ambiguities which I notice, would not be reliant on the precision of measurements/'interactions', to the degree necessary for distinguishing the existence of such objects from other objects in the same context/space environment.

OK, so the relevant one is:

Definitions
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

black hole
noun

1. ASTRONOMY
   a region of space having a gravitational field so intense that no matter or radiation can escape.

I have highlighted its complete dependence on other testable objective physics models, which themselves depend on other even more detailed physical models.
Those models are the evidence for the mind dependence of 'what a black hole is'.

 

[SelfSim]

The Black Holes example I gave was a great example of what I'm talking about: something entirely never imagined before, utterly new, which arose from physics theory, as a new thing directly implied by the theory, even though we'd never seen anything of the like nor imagined such a thing.

Not having seen/observed something before, is not objective evidence for mind independent existence. When we observe something for the first time, our mind updates our knowledge with a new meaning. 'Black hole' didn't have that meaning before it was observed/perceived (by human minds). You have not discounted what the MDR/MIR hypothesis claims and you have produced no objective test that might support your mere assertion (as 'a truth') of mind independence and yet the hypothesis evidence just keeps piling up!
How long do you intend repeating the same unevidenced claims, in the face of such a tonne of evidence on the other side of this 'debate'?
Your argument is beginning to sound reminiscent of a religous/faith based one!

Something never seen or imagined, directly predicted by a theory....

BHs were hypothetically, then theoretically 'imagined' (more accurately: 'perceived') well prior to the gathering of their supporting observational data (SR/GR). Or, are you just choosing to ignore all of that?

 

[Halbhh]

BHs were hypothetically, then theoretically 'imagined' (more accurately: 'perceived') well prior to the gathering of their supporting observational data (SR/GR). Or, are you just choosing to ignore all of that?

That's is exactly what I was saying to you. It's the central key thing.

We sometimes predict from physics theories entirely new kinds of things no one would ever have expected or imagined before the theory was discovered, and then after the prediction from the theory of this new thing, when looked for, amazingly we find that fantastical new thing, such as black holes for instance.

This shows the theory is about reality, that is objective external reality. The real thing, the "thing in itself".

We got a theory that isn't just a vague or arbitrary idea, but an exact representation of reality itself.

@partinobodycular

 

[SelfSim]

That's is exactly what I was saying to you. It's the central key thing.

We sometimes predict from physics theories entirely new kinds of things no one would ever have expected or imagined before the theory was discovered, and then after the prediction from the theory of this new thing, when looked for, amazingly we find that fantastical new thing, such as black holes for instance.

RE: the underlined bit there: Not quite. What we find there, is objective evidence consistent with the mind dependent theory, which is also amazing because, (yet again), we can then make sense, (and utility value), of what our last best tested theories predicted, by way of consistency with our observation models.
Its all models and no evidence for mind independence there at all.

This shows the theory is about reality, that is objective external reality. The real thing, the "thing in itself".

Nope - circular logic right there .. Your theory is about reality, therefore what you discovered, confirms the truth of that belief.

Your general argument tracks back to your belief that you have discovered 'a truth' (a concept which has no meaning acquired via the scientific method). The closest science ever approaches a concept of 'truth' is never better than our last best tested theory .. well .. because its already been tested.

We got a theory that isn't just a vague or arbitrary idea, but an exact representation of reality itself.

You continue to ignore the pile of evidence in favour of mind dependence. And you have no objective tests supporting mind independent exists .. except for your arguments from incredulity - ie: 'amazing' (this time round).

 

[Halbhh]

RE: the underlined bit there: Not quite. What we find there, is objective evidence consistent with the mind dependent theory, which is also amazing because, (yet again), we can then make sense, (and utility value), of what our last best tested theories predicted, by way of consistency with our observation models.
Its all models and no evidence for mind independence there at all.

Nope - circular logic right there .. Your theory is about reality, therefore what you discovered, confirms the truth of that belief.

Your general argument tracks back to your belief that you have discovered 'a truth' (a concept which has no meaning acquired via the scientific method). The closest science ever approaches a concept of 'truth' is never better than our last best tested theory .. well .. because its already been tested.

You continue to ignore the pile of evidence in favour of mind dependence. And you have no objective tests supporting mind independent exists .. except for your arguments from incredulity - ie: 'amazing' (this time round).

I suggest to read more widely to improve your understanding of physics and observations. Here is one good site:
https://www.quantamagazine.org

 

[AV1611VET]

I suggest to read more widely to improve your understanding of physics and observations.

That might get us a better mousetrap, but does it improve our understanding of the Flood?

 

[SelfSim]

I suggest to read more widely to improve your understanding of physics and observations. Here is one good site:
https://www.quantamagazine.org

And I recommend you actually do some science .. as opposed to reading your own beliefs into things you see written in web magazines about science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And I recommend you actually do some science .. as opposed to reading your own beliefs into things you see written in web magazines about science.

So, which book on 'Science' do you suggest that we and @Halbhh read in order to learn to "do science"?

 

[Halbhh]

And I recommend you actually do some science .. as opposed to reading your own beliefs into things you see written in web magazines about science.

I have done a huge amount of scientific application in my life. Science is not only what you do in a lab (as I have; I've worked in both a physics lab in school, and also a national lab) -- but it is also real science whenever you test any theory you have by doing experiments and/or observations that might show results consistent with the theory, or inconsistent with it, outright disproving it.

To try to eliminate some theories, as the goal.

It's a great day when we can disprove a mistaken theory, because it's like a dead weight we can get free of, so we can find something better.

People who do that in their lives are doing a key form of science that benefits them personally. So, I've done a lot of this in my life, for gain.

It seems to me you are falling now into ad hominem personal attacks really, where you try to suggest I'm incompetent or don't do as I suggest to others, or am inexperienced (as if I'd never even done science) and so on.

For the last 2 posts now you've made ad hominems.

When you focus on dissing a person, instead of talking about ideas, you harm yourself, in several ways. I'd suggest you ask yourself why you've started doing ad hominem. For your own sake, try to dig yourself out of the hole you have put yourself into. As with all things I suggest to others, I've already put this advice into practice in my own life, and more than just once or twice, and first many years ago. It becomes 2nd nature in time.

 

[Halbhh]

So, which book on 'Science' do you suggest that we and @Halbhh read in order to learn to "do science"?

As just a text I'd pick Tippler, since that is probably still the best physics text for majors, where you get your fundamentals (and since I've already well done it). But really for the best science method one ought to learn what Karl Popper taught as a supplement to do good science.

 

[SelfSim]

It seems to me you are falling now into ad hominem personal attacks really, where you try to suggest I'm incompetent or don't do as I suggest to others, or am inexperienced (as if I'd never even done science) and so on.

For the last 2 posts now you've made ad hominems.

Total nonsense.
Playing the victim is nothing more than a smokescreen in order to avoid confronting the evidence piling up in favour of the mind dependency of the meaning we assign to the concept of 'reality'.

When you focus on dissing a person, instead of talking about ideas, you harm yourself, in several ways. I'd suggest you ask yourself why you've started doing ad hominem. For your own sake, try to dig yourself out of the hole you have put yourself into. As with all things I suggest to others, I've already put this advice into practice in my own life, and more than just once or twice, and first many years ago. It becomes 2nd nature in time.

And so here we see yet more evidence of a belief distorting your perceptions of what is demonstrably happening in this discussion where, by belief, the hypothesis states its meaning as follows:

A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic. (Both conditions must be met).

You believe Ad-Homs have occurred for the last two posts .. with no objective evidence presented as the basis for an inference based conclusion.
Under those 'rules' what is claimed without evidence, can be refuted without evidence.

 

[Halbhh]

Total nonsense.
Playing the victim is nothing more than a smokescreen in order to avoid confronting the evidence piling up in favour of the mind dependency of the meaning we assign to the concept of 'reality'.

And so here we see yet more evidence of a belief distorting your perceptions of what is demonstrably happening in this discussion where, by belief, the hypothesis states its meaning as follows:

A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic. (Both conditions must be met).

You believe Ad-Homs have occurred for the last two posts .. with no objective evidence presented as the basis for an inference based conclusion.
Under those 'rules' what is claimed without evidence, can be refuted without evidence.

Hope you have a good day.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It seems to me that talking about 'true nothing' as a possible 'state' is the ultimate contradictory reification. It puts reification errors like the reification of processes, e.g. 'the mind', into a distant second place. 'True nothing' is, by definition, not a thing; it can't have a state, it can't exist. It's a concept of negation that only has meaning with respect to what does exist. It's true that it can cause some semantic confusion, but really, it's not difficult.

When there is truly nothing between two items, it means they are touching. When there is nothing in the cupboard, we mean that there is just air (and perhaps hangers or shelves) in it. In his book, 'A Universe from Nothing', Lawrence Krauss explains what he means by it, e.g.

"By nothing, I do not mean nothing, but rather nothing - in this case, the nothingness we normally call empty space." [my bolding]
​

Empty space has energy and it has extent - in that respect it is something, but it is (relatively) nothing compared to the stuff of everyday life.

The idea that something can come from what doesn't exist seems to me incoherent. The existence of stuff is a brute fact; even the question, 'Could it have been different?' seems meaningless - there would be no 'it'. Questions of time seem moot - particularly if time is an emergent property of whatever physics underlies empty space (Krauss's nothing) as some physicists suggest - but it may be fundamental. It really doesn't seem coherent to talk of time in isolation...

E.T.A. Coincidentally, I was browsing the 'Crash Course in Philosophy' just now and came across a nice example of this reification problem:

 

[SelfSim]

It really doesn't seem coherent to talk of time in isolation...

.. and if someone is talking, then the concept of time is not isolated.