The Paradox Of Nothingness And The Case For The New Deism

Aaron wrote:

It sounds like how I would describe "the unmanifest" or "the absolute".

Yea just different terms.

I just came across this definition of nothingness in the Everything Forever website.



Nonexistence cannot be. It cannot exist. It cannot even be meant. And that predicament, that total paradox, is very different from the real nothing that exists and can be talked about. And the fact that we confuse these two concepts is the very reason we don't yet clearly understand why we exist. We exist because there is no alternative. There never was a non-existence in the past and there never will be a non-existence. Existence is the default setting of reality. Existence belongs here. It has always been.


http://everythingforever.com/ywexist.htm

Gnomon wrote:

I just came across this definition of nothingness in the Everything Forever website.



Nonexistence cannot be. It cannot exist. It cannot even be meant. And that predicament, that total paradox, is very different from the real nothing that exists and can be talked about. And the fact that we confuse these two concepts is the very reason we don't yet clearly understand why we exist. We exist because there is no alternative. There never was a non-existence in the past and there never will be a non-existence. Existence is the default setting of reality. Existence belongs here. It has always been.


http://everythingforever.com/ywexist.htm

This quote from that site pretty much sums up my thoughts:
"Thou canst not recognize not-being (for this is impossible), nor couldst thou speak of it, for thought and being are the same thing."
Parmenides
That is why I'm a Deist and not an Atheist.

I'm not sure I follow.

Helium wrote:

I'm not sure I follow.

I'm still trying to fit the no-nothingness concept into my Deist worldview.

The assertion, "Nonexistence cannot be.", seems to conflict with some concepts in Quantum Theory, such as Quantum "Foam", where sub-atomic particles randomly pop in-to and out-of "existence". But if you substitute the terms "manifest" and "un-manifest" the idea becomes clearer.

Multiverse Theory has a similar concept, where our own universe is manifest (or actual), but an infinite number of alternative universes also exist simultaneously in the abyss of eternity. Those alternative universes are supposed to exist within one huge hyper-verse, but beyond our "light horizon". In other words, they are out there (they exist), but we can never see them (they are un-manifest), because of the physical distances involved. But occasionally two of these "verses" or "branes" bump into each other (universal sex???), causing an exchange of energy which, in an orgasmic big bang, gives birth to a new baby universe. When you put it like that it sounds like what it is: a scientific creation myth.

My own theory/myth (still under development) says that only one universe is actual (manifest), but all possible alternative universes exist potentially (un-manifest) in the mind of G*D. The distinction between the Deist theory and the Multiverse theory is the difference between Mind and Matter---between Metaphysics and Physics.

My limited understanding of Information Theory is what led me from an Agnostic worldview to a Deist paradigm. If matter is made of energy, and energy is made of information, as some Quantum theorists believe, then Information (mind stuff) is the basic building block of reality. Hence the very thing that 20th century science would label as "Nothing" is actually the essence of existence. " . . .thought and Being are the same thing".

Quick random thoughts.

Our own universe will soon be so large from expansion that the different regions will be out of communication touch.

The multi universe thing seems a lot like multiple galazy kinda thing.

Again it seems to be an area where every possibility is occurring in endless universes, but the only universe we're privvy to is the universe that is happening right now before our very eyes.

Interesting thought. I'm just not sure what use that is to me. And I say that in the sense that I am still interested and fascinated by it, meaning I just haven't fathomed the implications!

Well, one thing it implies is that we are not the "center" of God's creation, nor are we the reason for that creation.

Humbling, isn't it?

Gnomon wrote:

The assertion, "Nonexistence cannot be.", seems to conflict with some concepts in Quantum Theory, such as Quantum "Foam", where sub-atomic particles randomly pop in-to and out-of "existence". But if you substitute the terms "manifest" and "un-manifest" the idea becomes clearer.

Exactly. They don't pop in and out of "nothing". They always exist in potential. Its just that occasionally potential becomes actual.

Gnomon wrote:

Multiverse Theory has a similar concept, where our own universe is manifest (or actual), but an infinite number of alternative universes also exist simultaneously in the abyss of eternity.

Parallel worlds do not explain why anything exists. They may only explain why things are the way they are by saying everything that may be will be. But even that is speculation.

The many worlds theory by decoherence has always struck me as a modern day version of the epicycles medieval astronomers kept adding to the orbits of the planets to make their observation conform to the Ptolemaic model. But today the focus is on maintaining a materialistic philosophy instead of an idealistic one.

The many worlds theory was originally put forward to explain away the role of the observer in physics. Quantum uncertainty seemed to suggest the form a phenomenon such as light took was dependant on the way the experimenter decided to test it. If she set up an experiment to detect waves she would see waves but if she wanted to see particles she would observe particles. So in order to get rid of uncertainty it was postulated that whenever it arose every possible outcome was realized each in their own separate universe. But for that to happen the entire universe would have to split or "decohere".

The problem I have with that is it appears to violate the conservation laws. For the many worlds theory by decoherence to work there would have to be an infinite number of parallel universes and they all would have to have some way to communicate with each other in order for universe "A" to know what universe "B" was doing in order to do the opposite and the only mechanism capable of doing that is having a shared history up to the point of differentiation where it branches. But if the conservation laws are correct, and all the evidence I have seen says they are (in fact they have been used to predict particles such as the neutrino in order to account for so called "missing" energy something they should not be able to do if they are wrong), and there is only a limited amount of energy this poses an obvious question, "How can an infinite number of universes be created from a finite amount of energy?" If it was true the cosmos would become so dilute so fast there would never be enough energy in any universe to create the matter we see around us.

Personally I think this is an insurmountable problem for any materialistic philosophy. Besides there is just no evidence to even suggest it much less support it. By definition these universes are unobservable.

It also highlights the hypocrisy of some (not all) materialists. Just substitute the word "decoherence" with the word "God" and see how quick materialists are to jump on you and shout this is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. But because it supports an Atheistic world view they accept it without question.

None of this, however, means I reject decoherence or parallel universes. Only that I doubt decoherence is the mechanism by which they are created.

In fact the model I set forth in this essay predicts a multiverse. It suggests there may be an infinite number of types of universes each with their own laws of physics. We just happen to live in one that is conducive to life. But because of the constraints imposed by the conservation laws (which are a necessary component of any finite world) it also says not every variation of a type will become manifest.

Decoherence is a real phenomenon that has reportedly been observed in the laboratory. But all the constituent parts have remained firmly ensconced in this world.

Gnomon wrote:

Helium wrote:

I'm not sure I follow.

I'm still trying to fit the no-nothingness concept into my Deist worldview.

The assertion, "Nonexistence cannot be.", seems to conflict with some concepts in Quantum Theory, such as Quantum "Foam", where sub-atomic particles randomly pop in-to and out-of "existence". But if you substitute the terms "manifest" and "un-manifest" the idea becomes clearer.

Multiverse Theory has a similar concept, where our own universe is manifest (or actual), but an infinite number of alternative universes also exist simultaneously in the abyss of eternity. Those alternative universes are supposed to exist within one huge hyper-verse, but beyond our "light horizon". In other words, they are out there (they exist), but we can never see them (they are un-manifest), because of the physical distances involved. But occasionally two of these "verses" or "branes" bump into each other (universal sex???), causing an exchange of energy which, in an orgasmic big bang, gives birth to a new baby universe. When you put it like that it sounds like what it is: a scientific creation myth.

My own theory/myth (still under development) says that only one universe is actual (manifest), but all possible alternative universes exist potentially (un-manifest) in the mind of G*D. The distinction between the Deist theory and the Multiverse theory is the difference between Mind and Matter---between Metaphysics and Physics.

My limited understanding of Information Theory is what led me from an Agnostic worldview to a Deist paradigm. If matter is made of energy, and energy is made of information, as some Quantum theorists believe, then Information (mind stuff) is the basic building block of reality. Hence the very thing that 20th century science would label as "Nothing" is actually the essence of existence. " . . .thought and Being are the same thing".

Wow! This is very close to what I believe.

Heraclitus, the Greek philosopher, called it "Logos".

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Heraclitus.htm

Helium wrote:

Again it seems to be an area where every possibility is occurring in endless universes, but the only universe we're privvy to is the universe that is happening right now before our very eyes.

Interesting thought. I'm just not sure what use that is to me. And I say that in the sense that I am still interested and fascinated by it, meaning I just haven't fathomed the implications!

Another way to look at the concept of "all possibilities", is to assume that everything-not-yet-manifest exists in the Future, not in the no-longer-manifest Past, or simultaneously in the Now. Like an oil field, the Future is the storehouse of potential power. Humans are like vehicles running on energy. As we move along the road of history, old Nows become Past, and Future Nows are actualized---or consumed. As a form of stored energy, Possibility can be used to cause change. But even after it is "burned" the original potential does not disappear. It merely changes form, and goes back into the infinite pool of potential.***

As to the practical implications of these mysterious possibilities, I can only say metaphorically, that the magnetic force of Potential serves to draw our pattern-seeking minds toward the raw, unformed patterns of the future. The possibility-of-change (potential power) is the fuel that our minds and bodies run on. Knowing that today can be different from yesterday gives us a reason to get out of bed in the morning.


***Sorry, I sometimes get carried away by my own metaphors.

stretmediq wrote:

The many worlds theory by decoherence has always struck me as a modern day version of the epicycles medieval astronomers kept adding to the orbits of the planets to make their observation conform to the Ptolemaic model. But today the focus is on maintaining a materialistic philosophy instead of an idealistic one.

The many worlds theory was originally put forward to explain away the role of the observer in physics.

Good point! The epicycles were clever, but mis-guided, mathematical manipulations of the evidence. They were based on an incomplete understanding of the laws of Nature. As you say, decoherence is an observation, but the interpretation of its cause may be derived from an incomplete materialistic worldview.

In my post-materialism-paradigm the all-inclusive concept of "both/and" would explain the wave/particle paradox. What you observe depends on how you look at it. It's the old two-sides-of-the-same-coin trick. I don't know how it works in detail, but if Matter and Energy and Mind are different forms of Information, then the solution to the trick is as mundane as smoke & mirrors.

Paul Anthony wrote:

Well, one thing it implies is that we are not the "center" of God's creation, nor are we the reason for that creation.

Humbling, isn't it?

Actually, when I realize that " . . .thought and Being are the same thing", I come away with the opposite implication. Who are the thinking beings in God's creation? Where is Mind/Being most completely manifest---so far?

Cosmologists insist that our universe is not like an expanding balloon in that it has no center. Objectively, that may be true, but from the perspective of a human observer, wherever I am is the subjective center of the universe.

The universe may not have a geometric center, but it definitely has an ego-metric center. What's humbling is the knowledge that each of the billions of humans on Earth also, implicitly if not explicitly, believe themselves to be the center and purpose of existence. That may be a collective ego trip, but we come by it naturally. The objective view of my personal insignificance in the cosmos is something I learned artificially through science and culture.

Aaron wrote:

Heraclitus, the Greek philosopher, called it "Logos".

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Heraclitus.htm

I agree with Heraclitus that the Logos (Word, Mind, Reason) is the eternal, infinite, unchanging background against which all time, space, and change play out. Without a fixed grid against which to measure change nothing would make sense to our finite minds. In Nature, "all things flow", but in Cosmos all things are resolved. I can understand Time, Space, and Evolution only by reference to the imaginary concepts of Eternity, Infinity, and Absolute.

The Heraclitean Logos is common to all human beings, because all possess reason or Logos, although they may not make much use of it (Fr. 2). The statement that "All things happen according to this Logos" (fr. 1) should probably be interpreted to mean that the Logos is the principle of the organization of the all things in flux. Thus, the same Logos common to all human beings gives order to the cosmos. At the risk of putting words into Heraclitus' mouth, the Logos possessed by all human beings is actually universal Logos or Mind; there is an intelligence at work amidst all the flux, which is identical to human intelligence, or, at least, human intelligence is a manifestation of this. This, no doubt, accounts for the fact that the flux is not random, but exhibits eternal regularity and predictability. From this it follows that the Logos gives unity to all things, so that all things are one or belong to one system (fr. 1), insofar as all things change as directed by the one Logos. (There is, however, more to the unity of all things than this, as will become clear below.) Hippolytus says of Heraclitus' view, "Logos always exists, inasmuch as it constitutes the cosmos, and as it pervades all things" (Ref. 9.4.). For Heraclitus, although all things insofar as they are in flux are impermanent, the intelligence pervading all things, according to which all things change, is eternal.