The inevitability of everlasting experience

[SelfSim]

... You're talking about what is called psycholinguistics, and the difference between objective and subjective views. Your expressed sentiment is serving the same point I wish to make
...
I conveyed a possible semantical problem where misinformed opinions followed by actions have consequences in reality, depending upon what the poster meant. That's simply inferring through example that terminology does not always adequately depict one's intended sentiment because words can have more than one meaning.

Ok .. thank you for your clarifying response.
If your purpose was intended as a semantic analysis, I have no major issues with what you've posted. I'm happy to ramp down my criticisms, on that basis.

Following on from your latter point above, I'm coming from a scientific context viewpoint, where word meanings come by way of the scientific (objective) method. That method is also responsible for giving meaning to science's term of 'objective reality' .. which I accept as not being what folk typically mean when they use that term.
Semantic reasoning arguments don't carry much weight in a Physical Sciences forum.

 

[NxNW]

P1: Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing or become literally nothing.

​

Is there any evidence that 'literally nothing', ie a pure vacuum, has ever existed?

 

[SelfSim]

Is there any evidence that 'literally nothing', ie a pure vacuum, has ever existed?

Even spacetime can never be totally empty, as 'vacuum energy', (for eg), remains as part of space-time.

In theory though, its possible the Higgs field is metastable, (ie: is in a 'false vacuum' state), thus, its conceivable that the Higgs field could possibly decay into a lower energy state.
If that were to happen, the end result is unknown .. therefore one can't completely rule out (in theory) a pure vacuum state.
Note: the idea of the Higgs possibly being in a false vacuum state is speculation based on our current understanding of theoretical particle physics, (which, itself, is expected to change).

 

[zippy2006]

Is there any evidence that 'literally nothing', ie a pure vacuum, has ever existed?

Are you implying that Lawrence Krauss' argument succeeds and therefore P1 fails?

I haven't been following this thread, but I know there has been some discussion of P1. It seems to me that the most common defense of P1 would come from the scientific principle of conservation of energy. A second defense might come from the Aristotelian metaphysical principle where, when something changes, that change must always have been caused by some other entity. More concisely, ex nihilo nihil fit.

As already noted, I think there are other weaknesses of the argument that should be addressed first, before P1. One can argue against P1 if they like, but it isn't overly controversial.

 

[NxNW]

Are you implying that Lawrence Krauss' argument succeeds and therefore P1 fails?

I'm not sure what his argument is. Years ago I read a Discover article which I've since lost, but it discussed the understanding that a pure vacuum is inherently unstable, and would give rise to patches that expand. It goes on to explain how the sum total of mass and energy in this universe is Zero, because gravity is negative energy that cancels out positive mass, so this whole thing is really a re-expression of nothingness. It goes against common sense and local observation, but measurements are consistent with zero.

 

[durangodawood]

Are you implying that Lawrence Krauss' argument succeeds and therefore P1 fails?

I haven't been following this thread, but I know there has been some discussion of P1. It seems to me that the most common defense of P1 would come from the scientific principle of conservation of energy. A second defense might come from the Aristotelian metaphysical principle where, when something changes, that change must always have been caused by some other entity. More concisely, ex nihilo nihil fit.

As already noted, I think there are other weaknesses of the argument that should be addressed first, before P1. One can argue against P1 if they like, but it isn't overly controversial.

P1 is the first hurdle, as the argument is written. I cant see how to cross it and even get to the other parts.

Your two defenses of P1 seem valid within a universe. But we're not in a position to have an outside view of "all of this" and say what rules must govern the setting of the entire thing. P1 basically exceeds our reach.

 

[zippy2006]

P1 is the first hurdle, as the argument is written. I cant see how to cross it and even get to the other parts.

The premises of an argument are all equally foundational. In the OP's formulation of the argument P1 and P3 are equally foundational. P3 is not derived from P1 and P1 is not derived from P3. If something is derived from a premise then it is an inference, not a premise (and this is true of P2, which is not actually a premise).

When evaluating an argument you should always focus on the weakest premise first, whether you are being irenic or polemical. The numbering is not important.

Your two defenses of P1 seem valid within a universe. But we're not in a position to have an outside view of "all of this" and say what rules must govern the setting of the entire thing. P1 basically exceeds our reach.

A "scientific principle" is valid "within a universe," but a "metaphysical principle" is valid everywhere. Aristotle's arguments for act and potency are self-consciously intended to transcend physics. "Metaphysics" literally means, "Beyond (or after) physics."

 

[durangodawood]

The premises of an argument are all equally foundational. In the OP's formulation of the argument P1 and P3 are equally foundational. P3 is not derived from P1 and P1 is not derived from P3. If something is derived from a premise then it is an inference, not a premise (and this is true of P2, which is not actually a premise).

When evaluating an argument you should always focus on the weakest premise first, whether you are being irenic or polemical. The numbering is not important.

I also like attacking P1 because many people consider it a very strong premise. And its used in so many other related arguments. Kill many birds with one stone (sorry birds! I wouldnt really kill you, except to eat).

A "scientific principle" is valid "within a universe," but a "metaphysical principle" is valid everywhere. Aristotle's arguments for act and potency are self-consciously intended to transcend physics. "Metaphysics" literally means, "Beyond (or after) physics."

Sheer assumption, applying principles we derive from our experience into proposed domains we cannot for one moment imagine. We literally cannot talk sensibly about "situations" like that. We are only justified talking rationally about domains we can comprehend.

 

[zippy2006]

Sheer assumption, applying principles we derive from our experience into proposed domains we cannot for one moment imagine. We literally cannot talk sensibly about "situations" like that.

You will look less silly if you actually read Aristotle before making sweeping claims about his philosophy.

 

[durangodawood]

You will look less silly if you actually read Aristotle before making sweeping claims about his philosophy.

Ive read the argument outlined here before, numerous times. Perhaps theres something in the original theyre all missing? Can you link me to the original or at least the proper title so i can find it?

 

[SelfSim]

...
A "scientific principle" is valid "within a universe,"

Not so because we don't know the limits of 'scientific principles'.
Just like everything else in science, they are subject to change with new data.
We already know some principles are broken in certain situations.

but a "metaphysical principle" is valid everywhere. Aristotle's arguments for act and potency are self-consciously intended to transcend physics. "Metaphysics" literally means, "Beyond (or after) physics."

A 'metaphysical principle' is bounded by the perceptions of the human mind.
Aristotle's ideas are archaic and have been clearly superseded by the observation of counterintutive phenomena.
Logic alone, cannot establish existence. Science does that.

 

[durangodawood]

...A 'metaphysical principle' is bounded by the preceptions of the human mind....

Thats my main objection here. Things like "act" and "potency" are cause-effect type expressions drawn from our experience of time. We are not justified in assuming our sense of time applies in every possible domain.

 

[SelfSim]

(Aside: Apologies .. My typo there .. should have read as 'perceptions').

Thats my main objection here. Things like "act" and "potency" are cause-effect type expressions drawn from our experience of time. We are not justified in assuming our sense of time applies in every possible domain.

I am yet to see anyone describing (or justifying) any other concept such as: 'a domain', without invoking time.
'Time' is therefore, a fundamental concept created by our (human) minds.
Therefore, until someone can come up with such a description, I am justified in claiming that time applies in every possible domain anyone can sensibly describe.
That doesn't mean that an absence of time can be ruled out completely .. but it does mean we won't be involved in describing it anytime soon.

 

[durangodawood]

...Therefore, until someone can come up with such a description, I am justified in claiming that time applies in every possible domain anyone can sensibly describe.....

That qualifier at the end does a lot of work for me.

 

[SelfSim]

That qualifier at the end does a lot of work for me.

I think its clear one can convince oneself, in mind isolation, about some idea. The isolation there implies that descriptions (using language) aren't necessary .. but that doesn't make the idea sensible in a universe where 'sensible' still requires a demonstration to oneself, in order for the word 'sensible' to acquire a meaning.
If the idea turns out to not be sensible, then its conceiver would not be around in the universe, to give that word any meaning(?)

 

[Chriliman]

The way reality is now, with the laws of nature we have now, I agree.

However, at the point of the Big Bang, reality was NOT the way it is now, and the laws of nature we have now didn't exist.

So there's no reason to believe that P1 holds for the Big Bang.

Are you saying there may not have been a reality for the big bang(and whatever came before) to exist in?

If you’re not saying that, then the premise stands bc it’s referring to reality itself, regardless of what’s happening in reality, whether that be a big bang or a god or what have you.

 

[Chriliman]

How do we know this?

The alternative is to try and argue that literally nothing can make reality, which actually could be viewed as true if we accept that realiy is eternal, i.e. caused by nothing(not anything).

 

[Kylie]

Are you saying there may not have been a reality for the big bang(and whatever came before) to exist in?

If you’re not saying that, then the premise stands bc it’s referring to reality itself, regardless of what’s happening in reality, whether that be a big bang or a god or what have you.

I don't know what was happening at the Big Bang, since I wasn't there and the laws of the universe we currently have can be shown to not work at the Big Bang.

However, P1 (the claim that Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing or become literally nothing) is based on the laws of the universe being what we currently experience them to be. Since these laws were not in effect at the Big Bang, we can't say that P1 is valid. So, IF we can determine what laws operated during the Big Bang, and IF those laws show that Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing or become literally nothing, then P1 is valid. Until then, it's just an assumption, and therefore the conclusion is not a solid one.

 

[Kylie]

The alternative is to try and argue that literally nothing can make reality, which actually could be viewed as true if we accept that realiy is eternal, i.e. caused by nothing.

I don't see why "caused by nothing" should mean "eternal." The definition of eternal already exists, and it is "unending."

 

[Chriliman]

I don't see why "caused by nothing" should mean "eternal." The definition of eternal already exists, and it is "unending."

Is there a word for something that has no beginning or end? Whatever that word is, is what I’m saying reality is, in my argument.

I’m using “eternal” because I take that to mean no beginning or end.

IOW, nothing(not anything) caused it to exist, therefore, it has no beginning.