tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8691795183990597614..comments2024-03-29T04:58:54.003-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: What part of “nothing” don’t you understand?Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61021497347005584272016-09-11T13:09:08.006-07:002016-09-11T13:09:08.006-07:00Really late to the party, but briefly seeing all t...Really late to the party, but briefly seeing all this I dont get one basic thing:<br /><br />This "broiling soup" of a quantum field 'comes from nothing...' is missing a BIG qualifier.<br /><br />...'that our current state of technology can detect' Do we really have the biggest and baddest particle accelerators that will ever be created? There wont ever be bigger and badder ones? And we will never discover anything deeper than the quantum level? What's the point of particle physicists then if we've already figured it all out...let's just write it down in a book and move on to a new subject right?<br /><br />This seems like bad science. Where are the people who ask questions and wonder about the world? Why couldn't a quantum field be generated by a particle(s) that is 1 billion times smaller? To say that is impossible would be like an ancient Greek claiming nothing can be smaller than an atom? <br /><br />Its like saying, 'Oh, we pointed our Keplar telescope at Vega and only saw a gas giant planet orbiting that star, therefore there are no rocky, Earthish size planets orbiting Vega. Submit to our knowledge, we are scientists!'<br /><br />I mean really? You need a bigger telescope before you can say that! You! Out of the peer-reviewed journal pool!<br /><br />-Germanicus Vivat<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9566985932871511002015-10-04T08:58:58.891-07:002015-10-04T08:58:58.891-07:00How can something be uniformly random?How can something be uniformly random?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965787623128762161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-897336822415253202015-01-30T17:50:14.512-08:002015-01-30T17:50:14.512-08:00There is something instead of nothing because noth...There is something instead of nothing because nothing is an existential impossibility. Absolute nothingness cannot exist, because then it would have an existential quality, which would render it something.<br /><br />However, nothing can not exist, which sorta implies... ;)<br /><br />Try looking at the nature of objects within the subjective experience using ordinary sense to see the nature of somethingness and nothingness!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25558574481709394012014-05-19T11:56:56.873-07:002014-05-19T11:56:56.873-07:00@manwithacomputer
It is supposed to point towards ...@manwithacomputer<br /><i>It is supposed to point towards the contingency of the world. The world is, but could have not been. At all.</i><br />The question itself, in fact more or less assumes that, but that assumption is I think wrong (and hence makes the question itself impossible to answer). Any possible world comes with a state of affairs, which could be completely and utterly different from the world we experience, but the question is not "why this state of affairs" rather then "that state of affairs" (which in principle is possible to answer) but asks why there is a state of affairs at all.<br /><br />A better question would be to ask: what forms the ground for the world, i.e. what 'stuff' exists in order for the world itself, the phenomena of the world, to exist.<br /><br />Now, that question can readily be answered (depending on philosophical point of view) as:<br />a. matter<br />b. god<br />as the ultimate ground of the world without which the world would not exist.<br /><br />Whatever your philosophical perspective, for the ground itself (matter or God), there is no reason for existing, and asking a materialist why matter exist, or a theist why god exists, is meaningless.<br />They are accepted as philosophical ground, and exist without reason/cause.<br />For the materialist, matter exists uncaused; for the theists, god exists uncaused.<br />robheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12880785275108315402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15775313086391381042014-05-19T10:39:17.034-07:002014-05-19T10:39:17.034-07:00@Untenured
The question "Why is there somethi...@Untenured<br />The question "Why is there something, rather then nothing?" has some pecularities, which makes the question "unusual" at the least. I shall mention a few.<br />1. Linguistic/semantics<br />The notions of the words 'something' and nothing' in itself already make the question more or less self-evident, because BY DEFINITION there IS something, rather then nothing.<br />2. Impossibility to answer<br />The question thus formulated already makes it impossible to answer using the conventional answering scheme (Y is the case because of X, etc.), since any (existing) entity X which might be proposed of explaining the question, but then the question just reraises itself again as: Why does X exist, rather then nothing.<br />3. Wrong assumption<br />But at the bottom of the question, the question itself supposes something which isn't true. The question supposes that "something" and "nothing" are apart and somehow 'exist on their own' (as notions about reality). But that is not the case. 'Something', or let's say: Being and 'Nothing' are not only seperate, but form a unity in which each of them is the other's counterpart/complement or opposite. 'Being' and 'Nothing' *only* exist within that unity of opposites, and don't have seperate meaning.<br /><br />This might need some explaining. Let's take some other opposite, like light and dark. Now darkness are just the spots not reached by light, the shadows. But darkness only exist because light exists. Without there being light, neither darkness exists.<br />Imagine a different (hypothetical) world or universe, with different physics, where no such thing exist as light (no photons, no electromagnetic force, etc.), would that world be dark? Well no, in the absence of light there is also the absence of darkness.<br />So, in this way, the question formulated urges us to think what would be, if no being at all (and thus neither absence of being) would exist.<br />And there all our possible ways of answering such a question breaks down, because the question in fact urges us to believe that Being and Nothing are only seperate, and can be taken apart out of their unity of Being and Nothing. Which of course we can't. The notions of 'Being' and 'Nothing' can only exist within this unity of opposites, and outside of that, they don't have any meaning.<br />4. Other remark<br />And as a last remark, this type of question, in the way it is put, normally entails to ask an explenation for a contingent 'state of affair', that is a state of affairs which exists, but which could have been different. And obviously, in that case, one may be in need of an explenation.<br />But the question as formulated does not refer to a 'state of affairs' which could have been different, and in fact, does not need an answer.<br />But supposedly, not everyone is convinced of that, and some people handle the question as if some plausible answer might exist (which however, is implicitly refuted by the question itself because of the way it is formulated).<br />The normal answering scheme however, as already explained (Y is the case because of X) fails in this case, since any answer provided simply reraises the question (Why does X exist, rather then nothing, etc.) again and again, so ultimately, no answer (at least not in the normal/usual sense) can be provided.<br />robheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12880785275108315402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61988488976432564432011-12-03T04:30:43.974-08:002011-12-03T04:30:43.974-08:00@Anon; But I think that is also true of the questi...@Anon; <i>But I think that is also true of the question "What caused God?". It is a good question in that it opens the door to to explaining why there must be an uncaused cause and why that which all men think of when they think of the uncaused cause we define as God.</i><br /><br />Yes, if the question is actually asked because one wants an explanation, and not just to 'score points.'Kjetil Kringlebottenhttp://www.kjetilkringlebotten.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9360631360052413712011-11-29T09:27:39.544-08:002011-11-29T09:27:39.544-08:00well, not all of us would. It clearly isn't th...well, not all of us would. It clearly isn't the case that every atheist posting here is met with as much disdain as you are. <br /><br />And please, spare us the laughter - it isn't because you know the issues better than them. <i>That is demonstrably untrue</i>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10274628295132218702011-11-28T20:38:28.954-08:002011-11-28T20:38:28.954-08:00BenYachov
"djindra why can't you be more...BenYachov<br /><br />"<i>djindra why can't you be more like dguller and do the relevant reading before you speak?"</i><br /><br />It makes no difference to you whether I do the reading or not. You complain either way.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12634076257411752882011-11-28T10:24:37.307-08:002011-11-28T10:24:37.307-08:00djindra why can't you be more like dguller and...djindra why can't you be more like dguller and do the relevant reading before you speak?BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67976757726829903802011-11-26T03:35:39.153-08:002011-11-26T03:35:39.153-08:00djindra: "Why do such laws need a divine will...djindra: "Why do such laws need a divine will to remain in existence?"<br /><br />djindra just says anything to defend his emotional and psychological investment in atheism. It's neither true or convincing, please give it up and go away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48972502734200273562011-11-25T15:51:50.768-08:002011-11-25T15:51:50.768-08:00"They mean a 'roiling broth' governed...<i>"They mean a 'roiling broth' governed by the laws of quantum theory, entropy, etc. and that not only isn’t nothing, but just is part of the universe and therefore just is part of the explanandum and therefore does nothing whatsoever to explain that explanandum."</i><br /><br />This is defensive posturing. It's an attempt to direct the conversation away from the central problem. This "rolling broth" plays havoc with the AT crown jewel. Nature isn't anything like what Aristotle and Aquinas imagined. Their arguments don't hold. Their analogies are false. Nothing in the universe is static, waiting on the Prime Mover. First Cause becomes a murky concept at best. The god of the gaps is whittled down from holding corruptible matter together to overseeing eternal laws of nature. Why do such laws need a divine will to remain in existence? Do the most basic laws perish? Do these laws degenerate into nothing? If they change, what causes the change? Could we even consider such causes to be like causes we see in changes to matter? These questions need a whole new line of argument beyond AT attempts.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89640652521005735362011-11-25T15:04:13.177-08:002011-11-25T15:04:13.177-08:00The clever Feser finally admits it "wasn’t re...The clever Feser finally admits it "wasn’t really ever about 'nothingness' in the first place." That's obvious. There was never any pretense that it was about "nothingness" in the sense Feser would like it have been. So why does he pretend that it was? He's on a divine mission to uncover straw men.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67073211417923458682011-11-25T13:25:25.777-08:002011-11-25T13:25:25.777-08:00Yep. Sometimes words are unable to convey the feel...Yep. Sometimes words are unable to convey the feeling of dispair some of his posts invoke.<br /><br />-TruantAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72968956280448297142011-11-25T13:12:58.460-08:002011-11-25T13:12:58.460-08:00Is that Capt. Pickard doing a "facepalm,"...Is that Capt. Pickard doing a "facepalm," Anon? That's pretty amazing.some kanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12312599784024098652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52184216641879198342011-11-25T12:56:27.143-08:002011-11-25T12:56:27.143-08:00Feser scoffs, "What are the 'components&#...<i>Feser scoffs, "What are the 'components' of nothing? What does 'shuffling around' those components involve?"<br /><br />Surely Feser is familiar with algebra. Given any equation, no matter how complex, its "parts" reduce to the trivial 0=0. Nothing equals nothing. Yet we can rearrange that system’s components to express things about one of Feser's favorite philosophic toys -- the triangle. But God forbid we reduce the terms of any equation to 0=0. We may slip-up and pronounce the pseudo-math truth that, "nothing equals nothing." In truth, we can't actually mean *nothing* because when "so-called 'nothingness' has a [math] 'nature' and 'does' things, then it isn’t really 'nothingness' at all that we’re talking about!"<br /><br />So strike "nothing" from all mathspeak. When we contemplate zero we don't really mean zero, or nothing. We can't mean that because there are those nasty, unexplained, math rules we use to manipulate nothing. Those rules are something! Let's insist "nothing" includes all rules of manipulation associated with unspeakable nothing.<br /><br />I'm glad this issue is settled. We've discovered a how deep Feser truly is.</i> <br /><br /><br />…………………………………..________<br /> ………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,<br /> ………………………..,.-”……………………………..“-.,<br /> …………………….,/………………………………………..”:,<br /> …………………,?………………………………………………\,<br /> ………………./…………………………………………………..,}<br /> ……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}<br /> ……………/……………………………………………,:”………/<br /> …………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../<br /> …………./__.(…..“~-,_…………………………,:`………./<br /> ………../(_….”~,_……..“~,_………………..,:`…….._/<br /> ……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….“-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}<br /> ………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……“;,,./`…./”…………../<br /> …,,,___.\`~,……“~.,………………..`…..}…………../<br /> …………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-”<br /> …………/.`~,……`-………………………….\……/\<br /> ………….\`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..\,__<br /> ,,_……….}.>-._\……………………………..|…………..`=~-,<br /> …..`=~-,_\_……`\,……………………………\<br /> ……………….`=~-,,.\,………………………….\<br /> …………………………..`:,,………………………`\…………..__<br /> ……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“<br /> …………………………………._\……….._,-%…….`\<br /> ……………………………..,<`.._|_,-&“…………….`\Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57162663201504816212011-11-25T12:28:43.590-08:002011-11-25T12:28:43.590-08:00Wow, a zero is now nothing. That means in djindra ...Wow, a zero is now nothing. That means in djindra speak that -1 is even less than nothing because -1<0.<br /><br />djindra is brilliant. not.... dumbass gnu.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29784098477091539562011-11-25T11:30:06.478-08:002011-11-25T11:30:06.478-08:00Feser scoffs, "What are the 'components&#...Feser scoffs, "What are the 'components' of nothing? What does 'shuffling around' those components involve?"<br /><br />Surely Feser is familiar with algebra. Given any equation, no matter how complex, its "parts" reduce to the trivial 0=0. Nothing equals nothing. Yet we can rearrange that system’s components to express things about one of Feser's favorite philosophic toys -- the triangle. But God forbid we reduce the terms of any equation to 0=0. We may slip-up and pronounce the pseudo-math truth that, "nothing equals nothing." In truth, we can't actually mean *nothing* because when "so-called 'nothingness' has a [math] 'nature' and 'does' things, then it isn’t really 'nothingness' at all that we’re talking about!"<br /><br />So strike "nothing" from all mathspeak. When we contemplate zero we don't really mean zero, or nothing. We can't mean that because there are those nasty, unexplained, math rules we use to manipulate nothing. Those rules are something! Let's insist "nothing" includes all rules of manipulation associated with unspeakable nothing.<br /><br />I'm glad this issue is settled. We've discovered a how deep Feser truly is.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52910826467138004922011-11-23T23:27:36.661-08:002011-11-23T23:27:36.661-08:00Aquinas
The problem is turning mental being into ...Aquinas<br /><br /><i>The problem is turning mental being into real being. Because scientists use concepts that exist in mind but can't have independent existence in reality they start to attribute real existence to these mental entities."</i><br /><br />It's not a problem if you're not assuming the mental can arbitrate that initial difference between "mental" and "real" to begin with in the analysis itself.<br /><br />Also, why should mind objects need to exist beyond the factors they are in thought? In fact, that is even more real than the unstable "reality", since <i>mind objects adjudicate and pass constant judgment on what is "real" and what is mental just to use them as distinct terms in the discussion.</i><br /><br />I don't know how anyone could decide what is "independent" existence in "reality" without criteria that is itself already independently existing as a necessary operating system of evaluative thought that we necessarily use universally in analysis.machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27731703640621083672011-11-23T12:41:26.562-08:002011-11-23T12:41:26.562-08:00Anonymous: The comparable qustion you posed is th...Anonymous: <i>The comparable qustion you posed is the question that I feel is implicit whenever I hear "What caused God?". </i> <br /><br />There are places where the similarities you propose are not really similar. First, it is a demonstrable fact that at least for some atheists, when THEY ask "What caused God" they are not thinking along the lines you indicate, they are literally asking for a cause of God. Others, more sophisticated, are indeed pointing in a direction with the question: if not everything needs to have a cause, then you leave the door open for me to claim that the Universe is one of those things, and then your theistic "God is what explains the Universe" argument falls apart. <br /><br />This would be the beginning of a a useful discussion if the atheist were willing to admit that the theist's argument rests on the point that only a certain sort of thing doesn't need a cause, and the Universe doesn't fit the bill. Typically (with some exceptions) the atheists won't even listen to the argument long enough to get to that point. <br /><br /><i>I believe it is possible, though of course you may disagree, for an atheist to logically conclude that philosophical nothingness is an impossibility. </i><br /><br />Again demonstrably, many atheists claim that the Universe is simply a "brute fact" that neither needs nor is capable of being explained as a whole. This is dramatically different from claiming that it is logically impossible for there to be nothing at all. And the former are, generally, the ones rolling their eyes at the theists. In fact, the latter atheists might be just as exasperated at the former "brute fact" atheists, whose grasp of philosophy is rather frail. <br /><br />So no, I don't think the situations are all that similar. But both sides can improve the debate if they listen more attentively.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22954087268959369482011-11-23T06:12:14.853-08:002011-11-23T06:12:14.853-08:00Prof. Feser thank you for taking the time to answe...Prof. Feser thank you for taking the time to answer my queries.<br /><br /><i>"X is impossible" does not entail "It is nonsensical to ask why X is impossible."</i><br /><br />But I think that is also true of the question "What caused God?". It is a good question in that it opens the door to to explaining why there must be an uncaused cause and why that which all men think of when they think of the uncaused cause we define as God. I must admit that I do roll my eyes when I hear the question, but it is a question that requires explanation. <br /><br /><i>Nor is the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" comparable to "What caused God?", asked about the God of classical theism. What would be comparable is the question "Why is the God of classical theism the sort of thing that couldn't have been caused?" That is a reasonable question, and it has a straightforward answer.</i> <br /><br />Perhaps this is the difference between what you and I understand this question to mean. The comparable qustion you posed is the question that I feel is implicit whenever I hear "What caused God?". <br /><br />A comparable question, as some have raised here, would be to change "Why is there something rather than nothing?" to "Why is there anything at all?". Again, the first question is implicit in the second question (just as "Why is God uncaused?" is implicit in "What caused God?"). When I hear this question I again want to roll my eyes, but then go through the arguments for why the state of "no thing" is a logical impossibility. <br /><br />However, my greater point is that when an atheist asks "What caused God?" they appear to be under the assumption that this is a question which theists have not thought about and do not have a ready answer for. I feel that a theist may be suffering from the same sort of assumptions when they ask an atheist "Why is there something rather than nothing?".<br /><br />I believe it is possible, though of course you may disagree, for an atheist to logically conclude that philosophical nothingness is an impossibility. They may accept certain cosmological arguments for the same reasons theists do but disagree on the nature of the uncaused cause or the prime mover. The "Why is there something ..." question would therefore make the assumption that this is something the atheist has not thought about and does not have a ready answer for. <br /><br />If this were the case, then I think an atheist would be justified in showing the same sort of exasperation at "Why is there something rather than nothing?" that we do when we hear "What caused God?".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33547543756284234352011-11-21T14:32:41.252-08:002011-11-21T14:32:41.252-08:00@Chris, How do we get from deciding that there is ...@Chris, <i>How do we get from deciding that there is a first cause/ultimate explanation to giving it characteristics of God let alone any characteristics at all?</i><br /><br />Some of the characteristics can be deduced from Him being the first cause, e.g. immortality, infinity, goodness, etc. Any other characteristics flow from that, and from the observation that <i>the God of the Bible</i> = <i>the First Cause</i>.<br /><br />That, of course, requires additional arguments, like claiming that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, that God raised him up, that this gave us a ‘divine seal’ upon the claims of Christ, that the Church Christ founded is the vehicle through which he saves and nourishes his people, etc. But it is not merely the case of having a ‘first cause’ and casually imputing to it whatever characteristic we want.Kjetil Kringlebottenhttp://www.kjetilkringlebotten.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55972864621608607962011-11-21T10:45:58.336-08:002011-11-21T10:45:58.336-08:00@MathewG:
"Is this the same troll that Vox D...@MathewG:<br /><br />"Is this the same troll that Vox Day recently talked about and said he/she had a mental disorder?"<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />I have also witnessed him fouling other blogs, like the one by James Chastek, Tom Gilson's "Thinking Christian", etc.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8683162414991272072011-11-21T09:39:34.562-08:002011-11-21T09:39:34.562-08:00Is this the same troll that Vox Day recently talke...Is this the same troll that Vox Day recently talked about and said he/she had a mental disorder?Matthew Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16936182081171481892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56086784856261557122011-11-21T08:48:34.487-08:002011-11-21T08:48:34.487-08:00Anonymous,
So the article is right that somethin...Anonymous, <br /><br /><i>So the article is right that something always existed. For Christians, that something is God. How do you, in simple terms, go about justifying that claim?</i><br /><br />If you really are interested in an answer to your question, you should read one of Feser's books where he discusses this in some length or refer to one of those blog posts where he discusses it in less length.Alyoshanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17240278971111227912011-11-20T23:57:59.850-08:002011-11-20T23:57:59.850-08:00Ed, you say:
"But perhaps the article is he...Ed, you say: <br /><br />"But perhaps the article is here just badly expressing another thought, to the effect that it is necessary that something must always have existed, that it could not in principle have been the case that there is or ever was absolutely nothing at all. And I would say that the article is right about that. But neither “quantum uncertainty” nor any other theory of physics is or could be the reason, for quantum mechanics and all the other laws of physics presuppose the existence of a concrete physical reality that behaves according to those laws, so that such laws cannot coherently be appealed to as an explanation of that reality".<br /><br />So the article is right that something always existed. For Christians, that something is God. How do you, in simple terms, go about justifying that claim?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com