by Rick Lewis
https://philosophynow.org/issues/117/Be ... cs_No_More
Beyond Physics No More?
Re: Beyond Physics No More?
Dear Rick
I enjoyed your amusing article. It covers the key aspects of current debate. However I'd like to make a few points, hopefully without seeming to challenge you, as I am a newbie.
Loop quantum Gravity and 'Nothing'.
if you accept Carlo Rovelli's description of loop quantum gravity then you end up with 'nothing' becoming 'something' because 'nothing' can't exist without pairing up with gravity - a condition with emergent properties - and here we all are. No need for any kind of 'god' provided you don't mind altering the semantic meaning of 'nothing' to 'nothing with the quality of wishing to pair with gravity'. Can such a state exist or has Carlo ruined his own contention? Can 'nothing' really yearn?
I do not think that 'nothing' can have an a priori state or quality which enables it to pair up with gravity as the current theory is stated because this would require the creation of a quality. A quality which would predate existence.
We can say that the concept of 'hope' does not exist - it is a mere construct of the human brain - a few neurons co-operating. Certainly the asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs neither hoped or abandoned hope - for their deaths. It just did what incoming asteroids do.
So if the concept of 'hope' cannot exist without human minds then the yearning of nothing for gravity in the theory of loop quantum gravity cannot be possible and the 'yearning' must have taken place before humans existed or anything else. Gods don't yearn, we think - they are all-powerful. Devils (another humans-only fantasy) are theoretically subservient - so Dr Faustus met Mephistopheles who was working for his boss, Lucifer. Evil can't exist without humans to give it the quality of evil. Lions do not act evilly to kill zebras. In this sense only, and for humans only, Evil does exist and is defined in the brilliant book by Lars Svendsen - A Philosophy of Evil.
Do you think that this argument is sufficient to show that we must change the nature of the word 'nothing' or have two 'nothings' - one unequivocally means what it says and one can only be used in physics?
Lastly I'd like to point out - hopefully without being too pedantic - that your phrase - 'we stare out into the blackness' is actually a misconception. Space is not black, it is transparent. The 'blackness' is the default in the optical area of the brain - just another colour signal where there are no photons messing with rhodopsin etc. If we look at the moon we can see it without any 'blackness' getting in the way - and if we travelled by spaceship towards the blackness we would never reach it - because it is in our minds. We carry the blackness with us wherever we go.
Please come back on any of this.
kind regards and all the very best
David
I enjoyed your amusing article. It covers the key aspects of current debate. However I'd like to make a few points, hopefully without seeming to challenge you, as I am a newbie.
Loop quantum Gravity and 'Nothing'.
if you accept Carlo Rovelli's description of loop quantum gravity then you end up with 'nothing' becoming 'something' because 'nothing' can't exist without pairing up with gravity - a condition with emergent properties - and here we all are. No need for any kind of 'god' provided you don't mind altering the semantic meaning of 'nothing' to 'nothing with the quality of wishing to pair with gravity'. Can such a state exist or has Carlo ruined his own contention? Can 'nothing' really yearn?
I do not think that 'nothing' can have an a priori state or quality which enables it to pair up with gravity as the current theory is stated because this would require the creation of a quality. A quality which would predate existence.
We can say that the concept of 'hope' does not exist - it is a mere construct of the human brain - a few neurons co-operating. Certainly the asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs neither hoped or abandoned hope - for their deaths. It just did what incoming asteroids do.
So if the concept of 'hope' cannot exist without human minds then the yearning of nothing for gravity in the theory of loop quantum gravity cannot be possible and the 'yearning' must have taken place before humans existed or anything else. Gods don't yearn, we think - they are all-powerful. Devils (another humans-only fantasy) are theoretically subservient - so Dr Faustus met Mephistopheles who was working for his boss, Lucifer. Evil can't exist without humans to give it the quality of evil. Lions do not act evilly to kill zebras. In this sense only, and for humans only, Evil does exist and is defined in the brilliant book by Lars Svendsen - A Philosophy of Evil.
Do you think that this argument is sufficient to show that we must change the nature of the word 'nothing' or have two 'nothings' - one unequivocally means what it says and one can only be used in physics?
Lastly I'd like to point out - hopefully without being too pedantic - that your phrase - 'we stare out into the blackness' is actually a misconception. Space is not black, it is transparent. The 'blackness' is the default in the optical area of the brain - just another colour signal where there are no photons messing with rhodopsin etc. If we look at the moon we can see it without any 'blackness' getting in the way - and if we travelled by spaceship towards the blackness we would never reach it - because it is in our minds. We carry the blackness with us wherever we go.
Please come back on any of this.
kind regards and all the very best
David
-
- Posts: 4404
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Beyond Physics No More?
it seems that physics has verified that the existence of atoms...
what exists in the space between them?
-Imp
what exists in the space between them?
-Imp
Re: Beyond Physics No More?
Physicists say that the space between atoms is filled by the virtual vacuum full of short-lived particles which come in and out of existence in less than what is called 'Planck time' - and this has been experimentally examined by two scientists called Hendrik Casimir and Dirk Polder:
See here - and other links via Google at Scientific American and Caltech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
See here - and other links via Google at Scientific American and Caltech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Beyond Physics No More?
Last night's leftovers. Where you really that drunk, imp?Impenitent wrote:it seems that physics has verified that the existence of atoms...
what exists in the space between them?
-Imp