You misunderstand – the first set is the set of things that are possible, the second is the set of things that actually happen; my aim was merely to show that given infinite opportunities for actualization (infinitely many choices), still not everything must necessarily happen, illustrated by not every number being chosen. That I set up an arbitrary rule to accomplish this is of no consequence, merely constituting an example; since ‘every even number’ is a valid set of choices, it might have been arrived at simply by chance just as well (alongside with infinitely many other progressions that do not choose every number in the naturals).
Noted.
And, FWIW, I didn’t mean to appear abrupt or dismissive.
Also, Kimmy, to get to your point about reifying existence or nothingness, I believe that is horseshit as well.
What could be more concrete than existence itself? When talking about the origins of the universe, some say the universe came out of non-existence. I’m arguing that it’s impossible. Something existed before that, and so on ad infinitum.
If I’m understanding the OP correctly, the question being asked is that if nothing existed wouldn’t concepts like existence and impossibility themselves be non-existant? These concepts, like everything else, are part of the universe that exists and if the universe didn’t exist these concepts wouldn’t exist.
Look, I don’t want to come across as a big swinging dick, but: I have a degree in philosophy, you read Gödel, Escher, Bach.
OK, I’ve read Why Buildings Stand Up, I don’t pretend I’m a civil engineer.
I would start, at the very least!, with W.V.O. Quine’s essay “On What There Is.”
There you have it.
Well, hey, way to take that degree, and shove laypeople’s faces in it. You must feel pretty damn important.
I don’t have a degree in philosophy, or anything at all, really. I’m just asking questions, and arguing my ideas, as naive and annoying as they may be. I never claimed to be anything that I’m not. And I take full advantage of the resources I have access to, this board being one of them. I’ll check out the essay (IMHO, that would have been a better tactic to begin with, if you thought I’m missing some vital understanding.)
To object to this another way, as the amount of opportunities approaches infinity, the chance of something happening (that has any chance at *all *of happening) indeed approaches 100%. But the thing to note is that it doesn’t actually get to 100%. It remains theoretically possible to flip a fair coin an infinite number of times and still never see heads, because no matter how many flips have occured tails is always still an option.
Also, I think the above is is the way I was originally looking at the problem.
Well, in an infinite universe the answer would be ‘yes’…but with qualifiers dealing with probability. So, in an infinite universe it’s POSSIBLE that a million monkeys are currently typing away at the master works of Robert Jordan (and finishing his series!), but the probability is vanishingly small.
On what time scale? The Universe isn’t eternal…so, there was a time when the Universe didn’t exist and there will be a time in the future when it will cease to exist (well, in theory)…but it exists right this second, thus at this time it precludes non-existence.
Does that answer your question? Even with the clarification it’s a bit obscure what you are getting at to be honest.
-XT
I know it’s really obscure, and I’m not trying to be obtuse or oblique.
Let me ask you this, then. What’s the consensus on the idea that when/if the universe ceases to exist, what do we call that state? Is there anything science or philosophy can tell us about that, or is it just completely meaningless, hence me walking around in circles about it in this thread? Is there really nothing to talk about on that subject? Because we’re claiming our universe came out of that state, or might yet again…
Confidential to cmyk: If it’s any consolation for my earlier sniffing, this is horseshit too.
Horseshit, by the way, has a technical meaning in philosophy. It means “quasi-mystical but with pretenses to mathematical or scientific rigor; of or like an astronomer stoned off his ass.” Critical indicators of the presence of horseshit are terms like “the Universe,” “eternal,” “infinity,” “nothingness,” “God is the fourth dimension!” [someone, not facially insane, once said this to me] and “Gödel, Escher, Bach.”
There isn’t a consensus. The only certain thing is that ‘we’ won’t be calling it anything. Whether it’s the Big Rip, Big Crunch (unlikely) or just death from diffusion (or any of a number of other theories) there won’t be anything around when it happens…not even atoms.
There are competing theories about the death of the universe, sure. They are, of course, theories, so you can take your pick. I like the one’s that state that XT becomes God King of the Universe and is able to move through the membrane to a new universe when this one goes tits up…a universe full of large breasted love muffins eager to do XT’s bidding. Granted, this is not a widely accepted theory at this time, but there is a small but determined group (of one) who are fervent about it…
Well, I’m still unclear about what you DO want to talk about. If you want to talk about the various theories regarding the end (or beginning) of the Universe then I’m sure you will get some responses. I can give you my History Channel level knowledge on the subject, but there are several people on this board who are physicists or at leave very familiar with the various theories.
Depends on the theory. There are some that claim the universe will eventually return to a singularity, but I think the current consensus, such as it is, postulate that the universe will become more and more diffuse until eventually even atoms break down. There are some interesting theories that I only vaguely understand concerning M Theory where our universe could sort of sprout a new entire but separate universe…as our universe might have been originally generated from some older universe.
-XT
Out of curiosity, which parts are horseshit and what do you base that on? Are you saying that the term ‘universe’ is horseshit? That it’s not infinite? (since I didn’t use eternal or nothingness or mention god or dimensions I’ll assume that was directed elsewhere).
-XT
My take on it is in order for something to exist there must be a God, if there is a God all things are possible, so then nothing is impossible. Which scriptures seem to agree with:
Interesting enough man also had this ability on his own:
Which refers to the Tower of Babel. I would say it was a act of divine mercy for God to remove that ability of man.
Jesus.
My take on it is that you haven’t explained why there’s a God* and not Nothing, and thus have merely changed a word in the question, and have not answered it or contributed to answering it.
(Entertaining for the sake of argument the notion that there might possibly be a God.)
Wow, kanicbird, always in top form, I see.
Thanks XT, and others for your insights… even Kimmy’s. All I wanted was some food for thought. Obviously, I didn’t have a proper debate going in, and my thoughts were cloudy to begin with. I’ll close with saying my interests in starting this discussion was mainly to test the fences (in my own mind) of existential thinking. The non-fact that I’m not here at all, rather than I am here to type this words is the kicker for me. Kind of thinking of it backwards —rather than be awed at the profundity of the Anthropic Principle, I’m more awed that anything exists at all, when it didn’t have to. Did it?
Horseshit or not, it’s pretty damn crazy.
No, the fact that the universe exists (let’s call that U) implies that it is necessarily possible that the universe exists (let’s call that <>U). That’s Brouwer’s postulate: U -> <>U, which he uses to formulate B modal logic by adding it to the M postulate — the basic modal axiom, which is (using U): U -> U. And that means that if it is necessary for the universe to exist, then the universe actually exists.
Well, you’ve got your symbology right. <> <-> ~~, but A -> ~~A should be read as “If A exists in actuality, then it is necessary that A does not necessarily not exist.” In other words ~~ should be read as “not necessarily not”. And you’re right that it is equivalent to “possibly”.
Nothing as a thing is, in fact, impossible. It cannot be that nothing preceded the universe because nothingness implies the lack of potential for anything to arise.
That may be possible, Mtgman, for all we know. It is an epistemic (rather than an ontological) question. However, if there is an infinity — whatever it may contain, including nothing — then there is still something: infinity.
That sounds partly like Kant and partly like Wittgenstein. I think you make some good points. And you’ve reminded me of a quote by Arthur Eddington: “What we are observing is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our type of question.” Of course, my very favorite Eddington quote is, “Something unknown is doing we don’t know what.”
Why does it imply that? It implies that nothing caused by effects of existing objects will arise, but how would it exclude uncaused causes, such as (for example) the universe suddenly popping into existence ex nihilo for no reason?