Maybe the universe has always existed

[Togo]

Why do we allow all this arguing about a fiction? Maybe the answer to the question which came first, the chicken or the egg, is both?

Paraphrasing JFK: Ask not whether the chicken or the egg came first. Ask instead whether the chicken or the chicken egg came first.

All chickens come from eggs. Not all eggs come from chickens.

 

[Perspicuo]

Maybe the universe has always existed

Maybe the process of discovery is an end in itself. Perhaps we should be open to what is discovered, while our myths, hypotheses, previous beliefs and preferences are felled down one by one in the process of discovering what is actually out there.

Empiricism. The one thing that hasn't failed us.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Maybe the universe has always existed

Maybe the process of discovery is an end in itself. Perhaps we should be open to what is discovered, while our myths, hypotheses, previous beliefs and preferences are felled down one by one in the process of discovering what is actually out there.

Empiricism. The one thing that hasn't failed us.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Empiricism but it's also true that I never had to change my view that I know pain when I am in pain (whatever the doctor may want to say).

If things keep going the way they do (but why should they?), science will keep abstaining from trying to explain subjective experience. That's sure the best way of not failing! Good work!
EB

 

[Perspicuo]

Maybe the process of discovery is an end in itself. Perhaps we should be open to what is discovered, while our myths, hypotheses, previous beliefs and preferences are felled down one by one in the process of discovering what is actually out there.

Empiricism. The one thing that hasn't failed us.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Empiricism but it's also true that I never had to change my view that I know pain when I am in pain (whatever the doctor may want to say).

If things keep going the way they do (but why should they?), science will keep abstaining from trying to explain subjective experience. That's sure the best way of not failing! Good work!
EB

I find odd that you would choose to skip the whole field of psychology.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I find odd that you would choose to skip the whole field of psychology.

I don't skip. I just don't think psychology is trying to explain subjective experience. As I understand psychology, its declared purpose is to produce a theory of the human mind that would explain the behaviour of human beings, help develop effective therapies and improve our lives and society.
EB

 

[Gospel]

You cannot get nothing out of something & you cannot get something out of nothing. The very fact of something being something makes it something. And due to something being something it's not possible for there to have been or ever be nothing. Ultimately nothing is exactly what the concept of nothing implies as a result of there being something. In conclusion, nothing does not exist which actually makes it the nothing it's supposed to be.

There, I explained it.

EDIT: Yes the universe (and whatever else) always existed in one form or another.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You cannot get nothing out of something & you cannot get something out of nothing. The very fact of something being something makes it something. And due to something being something it's not possible for there to have been or ever be nothing. Ultimately nothing is exactly what the concept of nothing implies as a result of there being something. In conclusion, nothing does not exist which actually makes it the nothing it's supposed to be.

There, I explained it.

I don't think you proved your point. I also don't think you could, wether logically in terms perhaps of the logical impossibility of nothingness, or as a matter of fact.

EDIT: Yes the universe (and whatever else) always existed in one form or another.

It depends on what you mean by "always". Maybe our universe has always existed in the sense that if you could go back in the past then you would never find any instant in time without the universe existing. But maybe time existed even before that (contrary to what many people would want argue). I don't see any logical argument that time existed before the universe did (unless trivially you want to call time on its own "the universe").

Also, the question of nothingness is a different issue. Nothingness is conceivable at least in the abstract so the question is about articulating this notion with what we know of reality, i.e. that there is indeed something.
EB

 

[Gospel]

I don't think you proved your point. I also don't think you could, wether logically in terms perhaps of the logical impossibility of nothingness, or as a matter of fact.

You haven't provided me with any proof that you actually understood my point.

EDIT: Yes the universe (and whatever else) always existed in one form or another.

It depends on what you mean by "always". Maybe our universe has always existed in the sense that if you could go back in the past then you would never find any instant in time without the universe existing. But maybe time existed even before that (contrary to what many people would want argue). I don't see any logical argument that time existed before the universe did (unless trivially you want to call time on its own "the universe").

Also, the question of nothingness is a different issue. Nothingness is conceivable at least in the abstract so the question is about articulating this notion with what we know of reality, i.e. that there is indeed something.
EB

Time doesn't apply to my point. My use of the word always is a poor choice of word. I'm talking about Something (it doesn't matter what that something is, even time is something) & Nothing (which is the total and absolute lack of something). My point is that Nothing cannot be Nothing when something exists. And since you can neither get something out of nothing nor nothing out of something, nothing could not & cannot ever exist (again poor choice using exist). And being that nothing cannot exist and has not existed, it in and of itself is the absolute lack of something (which is nothing). Do you understand my point now?

With something all things are possible except nothing (which is the total and absolute lack of something)

 

[Perspicuo]

I find odd that you would choose to skip the whole field of psychology.

I don't skip. I just don't think psychology is trying to explain subjective experience. As I understand psychology, its declared purpose is to produce a theory of the human mind that would explain the behaviour of human beings, help develop effective therapies and improve our lives and society.
EB

"I don't think"? Gee whiz. Study some psychology. Subjective experience has been part of it since always.

Sheesh.

 

[Clivedurdle]

I don't think time (or space or spacetime) is something necessary for the property of existingness.

- - - Updated - - -

So "nothing" is imaginary, like gods?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Time doesn't apply to my point. My use of the word always is a poor choice of word. I'm talking about Something (it doesn't matter what that something is, even time is something) & Nothing (which is the total and absolute lack of something). My point is that Nothing cannot be Nothing when something exists. And since you can neither get something out of nothing nor nothing out of something, nothing could not & cannot ever exist (again poor choice using exist). And being that nothing cannot exist and has not existed, it in and of itself is the absolute lack of something (which is nothing). Do you understand my point now?

With something all things are possible except nothing (which is the total and absolute lack of something)

My point was and still is that you couldn't prove the impossibility of nothingness, i.e. that there couldn't be a case where there is nothing at all. I grant you that something cannot be said to properly come out of nothing and that since we know there is something we also know that it is not the case that there is nothing. Yet this still does not preclude the possibility of nothingness. People apparently can't stop themselves thinking of the problem as one of a time transition between a state of nothingness and a state where there is something (our universe or whatever). But as you said, time is something so nothingness cannot be properly conceived of as "in time" so the notion of a state of nothingness is absurd. This does not preclude however the possibility of nothingness on its own. This however precludes any kind of actual relation (e.g. causal) between the situation we are in now, when there is something, and a case where there would be nothing at all.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't skip. I just don't think psychology is trying to explain subjective experience. As I understand psychology, its declared purpose is to produce a theory of the human mind that would explain the behaviour of human beings, help develop effective therapies and improve our lives and society.
EB

"I don't think"? Gee whiz. Study some psychology. Subjective experience has been part of it since always.

Sheesh.

Good, excellent. Just give us a link to one such typical paper. I'm prepared to learn something.

I suspect you don't get my point. Let me repeat: I just don't think psychology is trying to explain subjective experience. I didn't say that psychology entirely ignored the concept or the fact. I just don't think it is trying to explain the fact itself or trying to develop a theory of subjective experience.

But again, if you know of any paper that's doing just that I'd be very interested.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

"I don't think"? Gee whiz. Study some psychology. Subjective experience has been part of it since always.

Good, excellent. Just give us a link to one such typical paper. I'm prepared to learn something.

I suspect you don't get my point. Let me repeat: I just don't think psychology is trying to explain subjective experience. I didn't say that psychology entirely ignored the concept or the fact. I just don't think it is trying to explain the fact itself or trying to develop a theory of subjective experience.

But again, if you know of any paper that's doing just that I'd be very interested.
EB

Super psychophysist here. An example: Temporal Resolution of Tonal Pulses http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/51/2B/10.1121/1.1912888

mmmmmmmm. Hope thisg ets us in touch with our quantum entanglemt universal mind ......Oooh. Those black hole events really make me feel, well, you know, .......

 

[Gospel]

Time doesn't apply to my point. My use of the word always is a poor choice of word. I'm talking about Something (it doesn't matter what that something is, even time is something) & Nothing (which is the total and absolute lack of something). My point is that Nothing cannot be Nothing when something exists. And since you can neither get something out of nothing nor nothing out of something, nothing could not & cannot ever exist (again poor choice using exist). And being that nothing cannot exist and has not existed, it in and of itself is the absolute lack of something (which is nothing). Do you understand my point now?

With something all things are possible except nothing (which is the total and absolute lack of something)

My point was and still is that you couldn't prove the impossibility of nothingness, i.e. that there couldn't be a case where there is nothing at all. I grant you that something cannot be said to properly come out of nothing and that since we know there is something we also know that it is not the case that there is nothing. Yet this still does not preclude the possibility of nothingness. People apparently can't stop themselves thinking of the problem as one of a time transition between a state of nothingness and a state where there is something (our universe or whatever). But as you said, time is something so nothingness cannot be properly conceived of as "in time" so the notion of a state of nothingness is absurd. This does not preclude however the possibility of nothingness on its own. This however precludes any kind of actual relation (e.g. causal) between the situation we are in now, when there is something, and a case where there would be nothing at all.
EB

I understand your point, however your point proves your failure to understand my point. I am not saying that nothingness is not possible nor am I saying nothingness as anything to do with time. My point is saying that nothingness is already happening as a reverse (or mirror) effect of "somethingness". Please reread my comments as I believe it is an articulation barrier of some sort (on my part) causing the miss understanding.

Thank you,

 

[Perspicuo]

"I don't think"? Gee whiz. Study some psychology. Subjective experience has been part of it since always.

Sheesh.

Good, excellent. Just give us a link to one such typical paper. I'm prepared to learn something.

I suspect you don't get my point. Let me repeat: I just don't think psychology is trying to explain subjective experience. I didn't say that psychology entirely ignored the concept or the fact. I just don't think it is trying to explain the fact itself or trying to develop a theory of subjective experience.

But again, if you know of any paper that's doing just that I'd be very interested.
EB

Probably because "a theory of subjective experience" is like saying "a theory of the universe". Such a thing is so complex that if you had one, it would be metaphysical (i.e. philosophical) not empirical (scientific).

So, if psychology (meaning behavioral science [because universities have departments, not reality which is one overall system of systems of systems]) does study subjective experience by means of evidence-based hypothetico-deductive theory construction, then it does study subjective experience.

Examples: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5987/47.short

 

[Gospel]

Every time i read my own comments i see errors in my expressions. I'm afraid I am no expert with words. And this has naught to do with self esteem. Any how, I'll try one more time to explain my point for the random web surfer that may arrive here one day who can understand.


For nothingness to actually be nothingness you can't have nothingness.
Huh?
The absolute lack of something itself is something
wtf?
In order for nothingness to actually be nothingness, nothingness itself must not exist
Troll!
somethingness prevents nothingness so that nothingness can be nothingness.
<--lost


The universe as we know it may not have always existed, but somethingness has and always will.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The universe as we know it may not have always existed, but somethingness has and always will.

Makes sense to me.

I'm tempted to believe that nothingness or nothing must have woo appeal when all it's ever signified is a zero quantity. Some religions are based on ex nihilo creationism.

The universe didn't arise from abracadabra, same as the piece called me. But both at one time were a quantity of zero. I don't know how to say "from a quantity of zero" in Latin, but that might make more sense.

Here you go. Thank-you google translate

a quantitate ciphra

 

[Speakpigeon]

Good, excellent. Just give us a link to one such typical paper. I'm prepared to learn something.

I suspect you don't get my point. Let me repeat: I just don't think psychology is trying to explain subjective experience. I didn't say that psychology entirely ignored the concept or the fact. I just don't think it is trying to explain the fact itself or trying to develop a theory of subjective experience.
But again, if you know of any paper that's doing just that I'd be very interested.
EB

Probably because "a theory of subjective experience" is like saying "a theory of the universe". Such a thing is so complex that if you had one, it would be metaphysical (i.e. philosophical) not empirical (scientific).

I don't see that it would be helpful to pre-empt what a theory of subjective experience would have to be. I also don't see why it should be anything but empirical. Of course, there may be a misunderstanding regarding empiricism itself. And I believe there is. But if empricism is properly understood there doesn't seem to be any good reason that a theory of subjective experience shouldn't be empirical in principle. I can't myself even imagine how it could be anything else.

I also don't get your point about complexity, unless perhaps you developed a new notion of complexity I'm not aware of. I think it is safe to say that the universe is complex yet there doesn't seem any reason to say a priori that a theory of the universe would have to be metaphysical. Unless again you're using the word "universe" in a strange way. As I understand it, science as a whole is the study of the universe with a view to explain what we consider to be our observations of it.

Obvioulsy, explanation may have to stop somewhere so something may have to be regarded as a metaphysical issue but that won't stop science from explaining one fact in terms of other facts save for some basic facts that will have to remain unexplained. So what we will not explain is reality itself (and maybe that's what you meant by "universe"). Explaining reality would indeed be metaphysical but not because it would be too complex a problem but because it seems impossible in principle to explain reality, i.e. the whole of what exists, including for example God is there was a God. A very simple principle it seems to me.

So, if psychology (meaning behavioral science [because universities have departments, not reality which is one overall system of systems of systems]) does study subjective experience by means of evidence-based hypothetico-deductive theory construction, then it does study subjective experience.

So your argument is that if A & B the A? if psychology does study subjective experience by means of evidence-based hypothetico-deductive theory construction, then it does study subjective experience?

I'm afraid I missed your point here.

Also, I fail to parse the bit about universities having departments...

Examples: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5987/47.short

According to the abstract you linked, the paper is not about subjective experience. Instead, it seems to be about how brain processes explain behaviour.
EB

 

[Perspicuo]

I see, Speakpigeon. You contrast consciousness with the brain, if I'm interpreting you correctly.

If so, I have nothing more to say as it would be useless.

(And BTW this is also away from the subject of the thread.)

 

[Speakpigeon]

I see, Speakpigeon. You contrast consciousness with the brain, if I'm interpreting you correctly.

Psychology study the mind to explain behaviour (or, sometimes, as in the paper you linked to, study the brain to explain behaviour). I had in mind the distinction between subjective experience and mind when I said that psychology and more generally science doesn't try to explain subjective experience.

Consciousness has become such a difficult word nowadays. But we can make things clear by making the distinction between subjective consciousness and objective consciouness. Psychology then study objective consciousness to explain our behaviour. A psychologist can in principle study subjective consciousness but not two psychologists will be able to study exactly the same thing so in practice they don't want to discuss the issue. However, they can't possibly always ignore subjective consciousness entirely. I wonder what they make of it but they don't appear to want to make anything of it.

I'm not sure why you would have nothing to say just because I contrast subjective experience and mind, or subjective consciousness and objective consciousness. Even less so just becasue I would constrast consciousness and brain. These are two profundly different concepts. Science start by making distinctions and then only later shows wherever certain distinctions are only apparent.

Also, to contrast, or to make a distinction is not equivalent to positing ontological dualism. Short of that, I don't see why you should become mute on the subject.

If so, I have nothing more to say as it would be useless.

That's probably what psychologists also tell each other.

That's also what I thought from the start you would arrive to of course.

So, if things keep going the way they do, science will keep abstaining from trying to explain subjective experience, and not trying is the best way of not failing, sort of.
EB