Yeah, these do seem to be very different kinds of questions. One could argue, I suppose that the question of singulars is related to the question of what sound is and how it is experienced (e.g. is sound relational, is it encountered as a direct percept or is it experienced as the result of some synthetic process, and so on), but it's not entirely clear if these are the kinds of issues the OP is raising.
This is one of the problems with talk about singulars, they literally have no measure and so are not capable of being assessed or judged in any publicly accessible sense.
...keep asking questions & you end up at constants (laws). Now to ask why those laws are the way they are in the first place? You're essentially asking for a unified theory. Now just suppose we had one. That theory would satisify the constants, but would it satisfy itself?
I want to know whether or not it's possible to make the full loop without having to address another question.
I want to know whether or not it's possible to make the full loop without having to address another question.
ISTM your initial assumptions need re-checking. Why should there be 1) things and 2) laws describing how those things behave? That's dualistic, breaking reality down into two separate and incompatible aspects. But in the interests of parsimony a monistic approach would be preferred.
To use an analogy here - the old way of trying to understand language in order to teach it was by splitting up discourse into 1) vocabulary and 2) grammar (rules for how vocabulary is arranged). But more recently this has been questioned and a 'lexical approach' has emerged which seems to me more monistic.
To use an analogy here - the old way of trying to understand language in order to teach it was by splitting up discourse into 1) vocabulary and 2) grammar (rules for how vocabulary is arranged). But more recently this has been questioned and a 'lexical approach' has emerged which seems to me more monistic.
My search for a singularity is over. I'm defining it as nothingness, a state of perfect symmetry The problem?
"If the universe came into being by a burst of pure energy, then where did all the antimatter go? It must have been there, because the laws of physics are symmetrical And if there was as much antimatter as matter, then every bit of matter would have joined with a bit of antimatter and annihilated each other into nothingness. That clearly didn't happen since something stuck around to evolve into stars and galaxies and planets and us." -universe & the teacup
I'm basically asking why there is something rather than nothing. Where did that broken symmetry arise? Find that & you've satisfied the question.
The question is, if laws of nature are mostly symmetrical, how does all this broken symmetry arise?
This is just something that was on my mind last night. I don't think we view broken symmetries, rather symmetries that are unfolding or folding back into themselves ...back into a state of nothingness. What we view are transitions.
& the constants? I believe in an infinite number of solutions. We just happen to live in the one with the constants that are allowing this^ to happen (if the constants weren't so finely tuned, then we'd be back in a state of nothingness & I wouldn't be here to address this question)
"If the universe came into being by a burst of pure energy, then where did all the antimatter go? It must have been there, because the laws of physics are symmetrical And if there was as much antimatter as matter, then every bit of matter would have joined with a bit of antimatter and annihilated each other into nothingness. That clearly didn't happen since something stuck around to evolve into stars and galaxies and planets and us." -universe & the teacup
I'm basically asking why there is something rather than nothing. Where did that broken symmetry arise? Find that & you've satisfied the question.
The question is, if laws of nature are mostly symmetrical, how does all this broken symmetry arise?
This is just something that was on my mind last night. I don't think we view broken symmetries, rather symmetries that are unfolding or folding back into themselves ...back into a state of nothingness. What we view are transitions.
& the constants? I believe in an infinite number of solutions. We just happen to live in the one with the constants that are allowing this^ to happen (if the constants weren't so finely tuned, then we'd be back in a state of nothingness & I wouldn't be here to address this question)
Last edited:
I've actually been wrestling with this kind of question for some time now (but from a more philosophical perspective). The problem with the demand for symmetry is that is doesn't seem to account for time, growth, and freedom, and the problem with asymmetrical conditions is how to given an account of their origins (hence Leibniz's question, for if you start with nothing then you are left trying to explain why there is something rather than nothing, which breaks the original symmetry).
If you're interested in reading philosophical articles dealing with this kind of question, then you might begin with a famous article by C.S. Peirce called "A Guess at the Riddle." If you find that interesting then I can recommend others.
Monotheists and FSM-worshippers (see post 27?) have an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. People who don't share their views may find the explanation inadequate. I can't say more as the mods will jump on me!
p.s. In the article by Peirce, the section that is most directly relevant to the questions posed is the final section called "The Triad in Physics". There Peirce gives his first real attempt to explain how the laws of Nature came about.
Hence my question mark. I wasn't sure whether the post was intended as a contribution to the debate or just a picture of someone's next meal for our information.
I'd never heard of that one before. I thought it might be a sarcastic reference to string theory or something like that, but your suggestion is better.
Is that truly a hypothesis of C. Darwin's?
Why is red-green color blindness so common?
What would make green so particularly important to survival? Lots of foodstuffs are not green. I can think of few if any green predators, snakes, bees, spiders to be wary of, and any that are have other traits more obvious for identification by humans.
I'm always cautious when an evolutionary construct is stated matter-of-factly. If, as is generally accepted, reptilian jawbones evolved into components of a mammalian aural sensory organ, it seems highly likely to me that there would be an intermediate phase where those body parts were not especially good for either use. I'm an evolutionist, but I don't see it as having a particular set direction or purpose. Sorry, Albert... More like God rolling the dice (combined with incomprehensibly long time periods).
I think it would be fair to say that both involve or imply assumptions rather than being assumptions per se.
Well, it's implied in the question that something exists. The question that Leibniz asks is why? He takes the existence of the universe to be contingent rather than self-evident or self-explanatory and is looking for a reason that would serve as a sufficient account or explanation for its existence (for he says that nothing is simpler than something, so if we take the simpler to be the more primitive or basic state, then the existence of something becomes a problem that needs an explanation or sufficient reason to account for it). For Leibniz, if there is no sufficient reason to explain the existence of the contingent world, then the existence of the universe must be regarded either as inexplicable or, even worse, unintelligible.
Maybe Liebniz should have also asked that if the existence of the universe is contingent, then his contemplation of it it is contingent upon its being and, if so, what conclusion can be made on that?
In the end, it is circular logic and a mental w@nk. Philosophy is more important than to be immersed in meaningless, self-absorbed nonsense for which there is no answer and, indeed, no worth even if there was.
In the end, it is circular logic and a mental w@nk. Philosophy is more important than to be immersed in meaningless, self-absorbed nonsense for which there is no answer and, indeed, no worth even if there was.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.