[extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causesthingy.

[A B]

Hi gts,
   
  I think that semantics is going to erect a barrier at about this point  :-)
   
  First of all, in retrospect, I should not have made such a sweeping claim that "Nothingness" *definitely* no longer "exists". As Scerir informed us, some scientists believe that "Nothingness" can exist in the "background"(?) of "Existence". And of course, they might turn out to be correct, it just seemed intuitive to me that true "Nothingness" can not harbor or enclose "Something" and still remain as "Nothingness" - I would expect that "Nothingness" is irretrievably lost at that "point".
   
  gts writes:
  "What does it mean to talk about the "existence" of "nothingness"?"
   
  That's a really good question and one that I have a hard time answering. I am not sure that I can give a satisfactory answer, at least for the time being. The "existence" of "Nothingness" certainly wouldn't correspond well with the "existence" of familiar "things". For example, the "existence" of "Nothingness" would be without Time - perhaps to the extent that "Nothingness" could be said to have "once existed", but by the perspective of an observer within "Existence", it "never did". My brain is starting to complain.  :-)
   
  The reason I started this thread was to attempt to provide a (debatably) rational explanation for the question of: Why does "Anything" exist instead of only "Nothing"? without having to fall back on something supernatural. If my viewpoint is correct (and I don't claim that it definitely is), then it makes *possible* that our Universe is entirely Deterministic (without being stumped by the classical philosophical problem of "infinite causal regression"). Determinism within this Universe (to one extent or another) seems to be an implicit component of some peoples vision of the Singularity. For example, the extrapolation of technology trends that some people have used to predict the time-line of the Singularity, hints at a bit of inevitability or predeterminism. Another example is the common belief that Algorithms (which appear to me to rely to some extent, if not entirely on determinism) are the essence of minds. Although I must admit that my current familiarity with
 Algorithms is shamefully lacking.
   
  I don't know how much more I can really contribute to this topic, but it's been fun while it lasted. :-)
   
  Best Wishes,
   
  Jeffrey Herrlich   
   
       
  gts <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
  On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:08:52 -0400, A B wrote:

> A point I should have made in the original post is that: if true 
> Nothingness has ever existed, it certainly doesn't exist now

But think for a moment about the last part of your sentence:"if true 
Nothingness has ever existed, it certainly doesn't exist now."

What does it mean to talk about the "existence" of "nothingness"? If this 
something you call "Nothingness" has ever existed, then it seems to me you 
must be talking about something other than nothing.

-gts



_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Everyone is raving about the  all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060712/316cd2f0/attachment.html>