I think that if we hold that everything in the universe can be explain, then it should also be possible to explain the laws of physics and the existence of physical matter without appealing to some supernational set of laws or a supernational god. we need a theory that explain why the laws of nature is the way it is, and why it has the form that it does. unfortunity, everytime when some one seek to explain why the laws of nature is the way it is, it must also invoke a "higher" level sets of laws. EX: If string theory is correct, then we still need a theory to tell us why strings exist, and why string has the property that it does, and why the sting is a string or no a dognut-namely, we need to prove uniqueness. So far, all our scientific theories fail the above criterions, becauses they all appeal to something. A theory of everything would be a theory with no chance, no purpose, or reason. Such theory would allow us to see that existence demand a unique universe with a unique set of laws, without appeal to god. On the contrary, if you claim that there is no reason why things are the way they are, then the whole of the universe and the scientific enterprise is based on no reason at all, and therefore unscientific.


If we are successful in coming up with a such a theory, then we should be able to completely create a universe without using the laws of nature( Because our theory would tell us where the laws of nature come from), and without using any energ(becauses our theory would explain the existence of matter and energy).

I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about. There is no sense in which physical laws model ("explain") the universe. At most you might say the physical laws coincide and are compatible with past observation but there is no sense in which laws are explanations. That is like saying Newton's 3 laws are "explanations" of anything.

Explanations are just that. Artificial.

And don't nobody go quotin' me no Popper up in here.

I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about. There is no sense in which physical laws model ("explain") the universe. At most you might say the physical laws coincide and are compatible with past observation but there is no sense in which laws are explanations. That is like saying Newton's 3 laws are "explanations" of anything.

Explanations are just that. Artificial.

And don't nobody go quotin' me no Popper up in here.

Where did i say the physical laws model the universe? or that laws are explanations? or That laws are explanation of anything? Some how we need to show that the universe is completely unique, and determined a priori. As for gravitation, we need to be completely certain as to why mass attract, because the otherwise option is absurdity. It just my opinion, but in order for us to be completely that the laws of nature is unique, we need to know why those laws are they way they are without appeal to something supernatural.

I put ("explain") next to model to show the sense I was thinking of and which you were (seemingly) conflating it with.

In short, your statement:


we need a theory that explain why the laws of nature is the way it is[...]

presupposes there is some "explanation" to be found. As I noted, explanations are artificial and thus the issue you raised is really a non-issue.

If you still think my interpretation was hasty I encourage you to reread your post:


unfortunity, everytime when some one seek to explain why the laws of nature is the way it is, it must also invoke a "higher" level sets of laws

What you wrote clearly implies that we "invoke a 'higher' level sets of laws [of nature]" in order to explain 'lower' laws of nature. In other words, we use "higher" laws of nature to explain laws of nature.

presupposes there is some "explanation" to be found. As I noted, explanations are artificial and thus the issue you raised is really a non-issue.



But explanation need not include laws. Explanation can be apriori. Ex:We know that a circle is such that all points are equal distince to the certer point. Note that i can explane what a circle is without using the laws of nature.

What you wrote clearly implies that we "invoke a 'higher' level sets of laws [of nature]" in order to explain 'lower' laws of nature. In other words, we use "higher" laws of nature to explain laws of nature.

But then those higher set of laws are unexplane? Where do those higher laws come from? That is why i think we need a way to show that there is not higher laws. That our laws is complete unique, and cannot be otherwise. We also need to know where the matter-energy in the universe come from without appealing to established dogmas( ie laws of nature).

That is why i think we need a way to show that there is not higher laws. That our laws is complete unique, and cannot be otherwise. We also need to know where the matter-energy in the universe come from without appealing to established dogmas( ie laws of nature).

So ...go ahead and do it, what's stopping you?

When you're all done, publish your explanation and we'll all review it.

Baron Max

So ...go ahead and do it, what's stopping you?

When you're all done, publish your explanation and we'll all review it.

Baron Max

I post my thread in a "philosophy" forum, right? my aim is high. you see, i want to create a universe from nothing, and using no laws of physics at all. I think this is possible in principle.

I post my thread in a "philosophy" forum, right? my aim is high. you see, i want to create a universe from nothing, and using no laws of physics at all. I think this is possible in principle.

So, ...go ahead and do it, what's stopping you?

When you're all done, publish your explanation and we'll all review it.

Baron Max

Very intresting thread actually, I agree with the topic creator. And I think that's the final goal with all science - too find the real reason.

Maybe the right path to finding the solution goes through philosophy and not through usual science too.

To those whose posts are of no value:
Please stop act like retards and read what he wrote instead of flaming something you don't understand.

So, ...go ahead and do it, what's stopping you?

When you're all done, publish your explanation and we'll all review it.

Baron Max



I let you know on my secret-> This is a philosophy forum.:D

Explanations are just that. Artificial.No, superficial. Surface. The nature of appearances.

Insights, however…


And I think that's the final goal with all science - to find the real reason.Interesting, and I'm sure you're correct, i.e., as wishful thinking—but that would only serve to expose the dreary thudded mind content with the superficial.

Originally Posted by Victor E
And I think that's the final goal with all science - to find the real reason. ”

Interesting, and I'm sure you're correct, i.e., as wishful thinking—but that would only serve to expose the dreary thudded mind content with the superficial.

Yes, maybe it's wishful thinking. But on the other hand geniuses exists to make reality of wishful thinkings.

Also I am more intrested in finding reasons than finding facts. I'll leave such mindless work as finding facts to the chemists.

Yes, maybe it's wishful thinking. But on the other hand geniuses exists to make reality of wishful thinkings.Ah—now you're jumping ship and talking about insightful individuals. Fine. But I'll agree, a genius is a lonely, atypical person—an outsider—espousing for himself an institution, such as a branch in science to occupy his mind with—or espousing any of the creative arts, for that matter.


Also I am more intrested in finding reasons than finding facts.What's the difference between a reason and a fact? Can a reason become a fact? Or do facts stem from reason?

But on the other hand geniuses exists to make reality of wishful thinkings.
Geniuses EXIST.
They don't exist BECAUSE there is a need to to make reality of wishful thinking. It's a by-product of their existence.

But then those higher set of laws are unexplane? Where do those higher laws come from? That is why i think we need a way to show that there is not higher laws. That our laws is complete unique, and cannot be otherwise. We also need to know where the matter-energy in the universe come from without appealing to established dogmas( ie laws of nature).

The relevance of Hume's injunction against (this sort of) epistemological speculation:


And tho' we must endeavour to render all our principles as universal as possible, by tracing up our experiments to the utmost, and explaining all effects from the simplest and fewest causes, 'tis still certain we cannot go beyond experience; and any hypothesis, that pretends to discover the ultimate original qualities of human nature, ought at first to be rejected as presumptuous and chimerical. (Intro. 8, A Treatise of Human Nature)

Hear also Goethes' caution:


The highest to which man can attain, is wonder; and if the prime phenomenon makes him wonder, let him be content; nothing higher can it give him, and nothing further should he seek for behind it - here is the limit (qtd. in The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler).

I'm afraid SouthStar is entirely correct here.


You seem to be stuck in some sort or Rationalist position with respect to both ontology and epistemology.




...
Some how we need to show that the universe is completely unique, and determined a priori.
...


Why?

If you're going to make use of this position as some sort of premiss, then you need to explicate this position, and then provide some support.

Simply saying that something is 'needed' is insufficient.

There is little, if anything, that could be properly said to be 'needed'.

p.s.:

Take heed of Hume's Fork; even Kant recognized that thereby any a priori was rendered impossible (more correctly, impossible to be determined as such..).

The relevance of Hume's injunction against (this sort of) epistemological speculation:


“ And tho' we must endeavour to render all our principles as universal as possible, by tracing up our experiments to the utmost, and explaining all effects from the simplest and fewest causes, 'tis still certain we cannot go beyond experience; and any hypothesis, that pretends to discover the ultimate original qualities of human nature, ought at first to be rejected as presumptuous and chimerical. (Intro. 8, A Treatise of Human Nature) ”

Hear also Goethes' caution:


“ The highest to which man can attain, is wonder; and if the prime phenomenon makes him wonder, let him be content; nothing higher can it give him, and nothing further should he seek for behind it - here is the limit (qtd. in The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler). ”


Good quotes. The question is: Can we break these boundaries? Can we attain a higher level of understanding? Lots of times throughout history people have said: We've reached the limit. But yet, the boundaries has kept being pushed back.


“ Originally Posted by Victor E
But on the other hand geniuses exists to make reality of wishful thinkings. ”

Geniuses EXIST.
They don't exist BECAUSE there is a need to to make reality of wishful thinking. It's a by-product of their existence.

That was what I meant, and you know that was what I meant. So why even comment it?


“ Also I am more intrested in finding reasons than finding facts. ”

What's the difference between a reason and a fact? Can a reason become a fact? Or do facts stem from reason?

Well, I'm seeing it as a ladder with a lot of different levels, the step above is the reason for the fact below, and that reason is just a fact of the reason above it. So ultimately we'll reach the top of the ladder: and find the real reason.

That was what I meant, and you know that was what I meant. So why even comment it?
Because I didn't know that was what you meant.
Have you tried actually saying what you mean instead of leaving it up to others to decipher your meaning?

Because I didn't know that was what you meant.
Have you tried actually saying what you mean instead of leaving it up to others to decipher your meaning?

Sorry, it wasn't my purpose to write in such a way that only 90-95% of the readers would understand.

Sorry, it wasn't my purpose to write in such a way that only 90-95% of the readers would understand.

Really? Considering that the woowoos that post here insist there is a reason for everything, and your sentence implied it, maybe you should re-assess your command of the English language:


Originally Posted by Victor E
But on the other hand geniuses exists to make reality of wishful thinkings.

The question is: Can we break these boundaries? Can we attain a higher level of understanding? Lots of times throughout history people have said: We've reached the limit. But yet, the boundaries has kept being pushed back.We'd have to get real up close and personal to push the limits—after having peeled away anything that might distract or dilute or grab credit, like anything institutionalized or societal. I think if you're serious about making a quest to penetrate the barriers, it must be done so as a solo mission into the outer frontiers of self—and nothing for anybody else or something else will bear witness. Why? Because you will have to become the mission yourself—plug into it.

Good quotes. The question is: Can we break these boundaries? Can we attain a higher level of understanding? Lots of times throughout history people have said: We've reached the limit. But yet, the boundaries has kept being pushed back.

The hesitance of these people was almost never stated in relation to epistemological limits per se. As a matter of fact, Oswald Spengler, whom I quoted, argued that the West had fulfilled its possibilities and was now, in its "winter time", tying up loose ends: polishing up the last bits of its mathematics, physics, and social institutions. But even this assertion was formulated in the context of a wider hypothesis - that a culture's epistemology (in this case the West's) was limited to its lifetime; Spengler was not suggesting that physics had reached its end, but rather that the fundamentally Western system of physics would die with the civilization. Of course, there have been some (the 'intelligent design' movement, for example) who infer the Creator's hand from our ignorance.
In most cases the pessimism has been Spenglerian: it has been a lamentation that the usual framework with which we understand some aspect of the world, having been worn for hundreds of years, has outlived its original purpose and no longer stimulates progress in the field. This is in fact how mathematics came to be set on the 'rigorous footing' of set theory and Bacon's empiricism supplanted Aristotle's defunct system.

In short, I would qualify the epistemological 'limit' these people have referred to. In most cases, the call was for an invigorating and fresh perspective of looking at the old knowledge because the old framework had carried the field as far as it could.

Hume clarifies the type of epistemological 'boundaries' he has in mind. He relates it to disagreement and cogency. Clearly, there has always been disagreement over the 'real' or ultimate reasons for everyting'. One of the hallmarks of established knowledge or "truth" is the certainty it merits. In the case of speculation over 'the ultimate reason for everything' or 'the way things actually are', we've reached no fruition after millenia-long debate on how humans cognize, the primacy of reason, the limits of logic and even the validity of our certainty in knowledge. For all the rancor, there appears to be no end in sight. In contradistinction, the pessimistic stances you've alluded to and which were later resolved were decidedly not philosophical* in nature.

Understood from this historical vantage point, there can be no hope of an easy or imminent agreement on these (so-called) problems. We may speculate all we want on the nature and limits of human cognition but that is all it ever remains. Speculation. We can find no concord or certainty in any of thse matters, though each school and philosopher tenaciously holds to some theory as if it were correct and representative of 'the way things really are'.


*philosophical in the sense that they did not deal with the limits of knowledge per se, or epistemology in itself (which is what the OP is interested in). To give a last example, the beginning of the 20th century saw 'the end of physics' as the Newtonian framework proved 'good enough' to answer all but a few rogue problems. And then Einstein's papers were published. Now, similar proclamations of the 'end of physics' are heard again and what is needed is another revitalizing perspective to usher in a century. The prophets do not mean the limits of our knowledge have been reached, but rather the limits of what we can do with the current framework have been reached.

Truelly, only nothing could have caused the very beginning of all things
Something before would imply there was no beginning, And if there was no beginning, this we see today would not have come to pass.

But what is nothing? You can't say nothing could have begun with a limit of dimensions since it would then have a limit hence not be nothing. Though a dimension requires a length, may it be 0, and a beginning and end, may them be 2 sides of the same nothing.

So nothing is really an infinite dimensional dot. At this very moment it decays into a nothing with less sides and dimensions since a side is something and instead gets a limit which is also something, and the other way around is just as valid.

So what the universe is really trying to say is that sides and limits are nothing, on something that has no length. The universe is actually nothing and that which you see in front of you is the consequence and existence of nothing.

Interesting posts. I'll have to think this through.

Interesting posts. I'll have to think this through.

Thank you for thinking of it as interesting. Moreover the implications are that space is 3D "nothing" which is really common and distributed next to eachother to give the illusion of space, even though every singular unit truelly is 0 long, it is just that 0 long is compareable with other groups of units that might be 5*0 long, for instance matter, and space might be billions*0 long between objects or most likely, more yet.

Matter on the other hand, has more then 3 dimensions, and I wouldn't know how many dimensions dark matter or exotic matter has.

Perhaps that last was a bad explanation. The infinite dimensional dot decays to 3D dots called space and xD dots called matter, not to mention yD dots called dark matter and zD dots called exotic matter.

Truelly, only nothing could have caused the very beginning of all things. Something before would imply there was no beginning, And if there was no beginning, this we see today would not have come to pass.So is Nothing a Something, or is Nothing also not Nothing? And if Nothing could have caused Something to happen in the beginning, then Nothing could not have been alone in the beginning—so too were Inducement, Dawn, and Genesis—One.

Or did Nothing create these from nothing? In which case then, Nothing would have had to been… One. Reacting to itself, perhaps? But then Nothing would have been reacting to something—itself.

Nothing is what we today call something. But it isn't cause it is still nothing but in another valid form of nothing, since all it takes for nothing to be nothing is that it has either sides or limits instead of sides, or both sides and limits, it can't have neither, since that would be much like the barber paradox:
"barber shaves all non-self shaving. Hence neither can nor can't shave himself."

Nothing is what we today call something. But it isn't cause it is still nothing but in another valid form of nothing, since all it takes for nothing to be nothing is that it has either sides or limits instead of sides, or both sides and limits, it can't have neither, since that would be much like the barber paradox:
"barber shaves all non-self shaving. Hence neither can nor can't shave himself."Hence with Nothing there's no logic. Wonderful.

Nothing is what we today call something. But it isn't cause it is still nothing but in another valid form of nothing, since all it takes for nothing to be nothing is that it has either sides or limits instead of sides, or both sides and limits, it can't have neither, since that would be much like the barber paradox:
"barber shaves all non-self shaving. Hence neither can nor can't shave himself."Hence with Nothing there's no logic. Wonderful.

But with your Nothing, I do seem to detect some Hypocrisy and Duplicity?

Aah, you imply that all which nothing contains must be self contradicting, but I clearly stated that that nothing could not exist since it was self contradicting and hence the nothing that preexisted all things which implies that it did not have a plausible past, must have been the only thing that cannot have a past, nor room, nor anything except that which all existing things must have, mentioned earlier, and that thing was a dot with no length and infinite dimensions.

If we think now that nothing sounds contradictive, let's call it 0^inf.

And I have written stuff like this before, yes.

Aah, you imply that all which nothing contains must be self contradicting, but I clearly stated that that nothing could not exist since it was self contradicting and hence the nothing that preexisted all things which implies that it did not have a plausible past, must have been the only thing that cannot have a past, nor room, nor anything except that which all existing things must have, mentioned earlier, and that thing was a dot with no length and infinite dimensions.

If we think now that nothing sounds contradictive, let's call it 0^inf.

And I have written stuff like this before, yes.

Sooo…let me try to unstraighten this.

If Nothing is absolutely nothing at all, and because Nothing, being nothing, was nothing before and afterwards too, then Nothing does not exist—and never did? Therefore, before, in the beginning, there was… Nothing because there was a Beginning!

Are you serious? It does seem to make some sense.

If that which shall be existed, has no requirements then that which will exist is the universe, is that logic?

No thing that is not its own opposit could exist. Only 0 raised to anything fullfills that requirement.

And if your thinking of positive and negative particles, they are the same thing moving in the opposit direction of time.

To make it clearer: if +1 existed, what existed before +1 existed, since all things has a beginning. And how could it exist without breaking the laws of conservation etc.

If that which shall be existed, has no requirements then that which will exist is the universe, is that logic?But then you'd have to say that something gave rise to logic too.

You'd also have to muse over the beginning of the beginning—not the beginning of this Universe but the very gesture itself.

Was it a burst or a stir or a property? was it a will? a will that instantly proposed the idea of itself?

But for that will to be a will, it would need to exist. Hence the proposal, the gesture, not for a universe but for what that universe would come to represent: an unconditional effect of itself… an absolute existence.

The true beginning was the beginning of the beginning. any object or length requires either limit or beginning and end. If the universe had to begin at no length, it must have had a limit. If that was the case, it begun with a zerodimensional dot with only limits, and quickly became an infinite dimensional dot with no limits and only beginnings and ends, eternally decaying back into a zerodimensional dot. Is that a better version, previous poster?

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/802/howtodophilosophyif2.jpg

In that case I'm just a thinker.

And I always thought of myself as an experiencer.

Sniff:
The true beginning was the beginning of the beginning. any object or length requires either limit or beginning and end. If the universe had to begin at no length, it must have had a limit. If that was the case, it begun with a zerodimensional dot with only limits, and quickly became an infinite dimensional dot with no limits and only beginnings and ends, eternally decaying back into a zerodimensional dot. Is that a better version, previous poster?

In that case Infinity has no infinity because it keeps reinventing itself? Or is Infinity the same as or related to Nothing?

And I always thought of myself as an experiencer.

Sniff: I like that nickname :)


In that case Infinity has no infinity because it keeps reinventing itself? Or is Infinity the same as or related to Nothing?


It was allways infinity, either infinite limits or infinite parts, even ones in an infinity, infinite dimensions.

As we talked about before, nothing might not be the best name for it, since it is contradictive. It was close to nothing, it is still "dimensionless" since all lengths are zero, but it was also infinite all the time.

Example: 0 has no sign, 1/0 has no sign, hence both must be zero. Since one is infinity, I reckon both are.

Do you understand this thinking?

I think that if we hold that everything in the universe can be explain, then it should also be possible to explain the laws of physics and the existence of physical matter without appealing to some supernational set of laws or a supernational god. we need a theory that explain why the laws of nature is the way it is, and why it has the form that it does. unfortunity, everytime when some one seek to explain why the laws of nature is the way it is, it must also invoke a "higher" level sets of laws. EX: If string theory is correct, then we still need a theory to tell us why strings exist, and why string has the property that it does, and why the sting is a string or no a dognut-namely, we need to prove uniqueness. So far, all our scientific theories fail the above criterions, becauses they all appeal to something. A theory of everything would be a theory with no chance, no purpose, or reason. Such theory would allow us to see that existence demand a unique universe with a unique set of laws, without appeal to god. On the contrary, if you claim that there is no reason why things are the way they are, then the whole of the universe and the scientific enterprise is based on no reason at all, and therefore unscientific.


If we are successful in coming up with a such a theory, then we should be able to completely create a universe without using the laws of nature( Because our theory would tell us where the laws of nature come from), and without using any energ(becauses our theory would explain the existence of matter and energy).If everything didn't exist, then nothing would exist, and that can't happen.

Example: 0 has no sign, 1/0 has no sign, hence both must be zero. Since one is infinity, I reckon both are.


That doesn't make sense.

Do you understand this thinking?I'm not much of a maths' guy, or science for that matter. But I may enjoy watching it in movement if it's made clear enough. I'm more of the Picasso-Warhol genre: broken angles and split windowpanes, and tragic arrangements in contemporary silliness.

I'm not much of a maths' guy, or science for that matter. But I may enjoy watching it in movement if it's made clear enough. I'm more of the Picasso-Warhol genre: broken angles and split windowpanes, and tragic arrangements in contemporary silliness.

That sounds like a way you could spend your life. 1/0 is much like that. My theory is that 0 is its own inverse. It's a bit of a broken equation and a tragic arrangement in contemporary silliness I guess.

Sorry for being away, I was having a vacation.

So in other words, one is the loneliest number,
and zero is self-sufficient because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny?