Something rather than nothing at all.

[soundwave86]

Thought it best to start a new topic and maybe someone could guide me to a relevant thread. 

Why is there something instead of nothing at all?

I realize that even in an empty vacuum, particles spring in and out of existence.  So maybe nothing is a false concept?  I just want to shine some clarity on the topic, as it causes me a lot of anxiety with my current interpretation of it.

I almost wanted to post it in the atheism room because, to me, no God could be involved with such things.
 

[Wuzzums]

"Why" implies purpose which in turn implies a creator.

"HOW is there something" is a more scientific question. Lawrence Krauss has a whole book on the issue: "A Universe From Nothing"

[soundwave86]

"Why" implies purpose which in turn implies a creator.

"HOW is there something" is a more scientific question. Lawrence Krauss has a whole book on the issue: "A Universe From Nothing"

I feel like its a scientific question, so i'll change that to HOW, definetly.  But even after reading articles my brain does not rest on the matter.

OK i'll go find that book.

[dsayers]

it causes me a lot of anxiety with my current interpretation of it.

Why? In what way does this have any effect on the way people treat one another for example?

 

There was a thread once that made the case that there's no such thing as nothingness existentially because even in space, the place between particles is filled with something. I tried to find the thread, but could not. It was an interesting read.

[Donnadogsoth]

Not theology or physics, but metaphysics applies here. Ontologically we're either dealing with an aeternal or a contingent substance.  A contingent substance cannot explain or justify itself.  We are therefore left with an aeternal substance.

 

Nothingness cannot be aeternal because nothingness is not a substance and therefore cannot explain itself, cannot justify its own nonexistence.

 

Nothingness is thereby merely a kind of distortion.  The realm of contingent things like you or I thus experiences a kind of mental "optical illusion" that generates the idea of nothingness as a positive thing, a substantial thing, something that could be aeternal.

 

Hope this helps.

[neeeel]

vacuum isnt the same as nothingness

space isnt the same as nothingness

 

Im not sure our brains can actually wrap themselves around the concept of true nothingness

[thebeardslastcall]

Space isn't empty. Things aren't popping into existence. They're coming into and out of perception.

What exactly are you anxious about? Are you worried you'll pop out existence or does it make you feel insane with people proposing insane views of reality? You will eventually die and at that point, consciously, you'll no longer exist, just as you didn't consciously exist before your were conceived.

[HasMat]

Not theology or physics, but metaphysics applies here. Ontologically we're either dealing with an aeternal or a contingent substance.  A contingent substance cannot explain or justify itself.  We are therefore left with an aeternal substance.

 

Nothingness cannot be aeternal because nothingness is not a substance and therefore cannot explain itself, cannot justify its own nonexistence.

 

Nothingness is thereby merely a kind of distortion.  The realm of contingent things like you or I thus experiences a kind of mental "optical illusion" that generates the idea of nothingness as a positive thing, a substantial thing, something that could be aeternal.

 

Hope this helps.

My thought is that it (nothing) explicitly is.

 

Nothing is, regardless of whether something also is.

 

I think the better framing is "why something, as well as nothing".

 

It's not in place of, its on top of. Real is in addition to (and from) the imaginary, not mutually exclusive with.

 

The Big Bang singularity is nothing. There is no meaning, complexity, density, time, etc inside it. All these terms are empty. It's "existence" is imaginary at this point. As men we seek emptiness (especially of balls). Well, there it is at the singularity. It's where we come from, and the cosmic egg we try to return to. Men seek emptiness, while women seek fullness (psychological reason they struggle with overeating).

 

Why something? This sounds like a question for a feminine aspect of creation (fractal ethereal Eve), who eats the fruit and reality ensues. We had nothing, and emptiness. Now we have something, and fullness. Pandora's box is open.

 

Men strive to crush reality into an understandable box, to solve the rubix cube, to enclose all options into a single objective hierarchy/system as a mastermind determinor. Women try to experience the whole thing, to sample the breadth without containing it, to live inside the subjective, as a leaf on the wind without agency nor control.

 

Nothing is. It's attached to the last eyelash on your right eye. Tell me how its not.

 

I don't think one can really understand the question without also understanding why men work themselves to death trying to get $ for their family (expend their strength to achieve emptiness). The quest to consume oneself in the service of a higher objective is part of a pair. The other half is why something.

 

When a man actively ejaculates into the passive woman he spends his lifeforce on her. He experiences a mini-death. Not a dirtnap, just a nap. He is empty, and can rest (now passive). She is then empowered with fullness (no longer passive), and life proliferates. Probably a good time for her to go into the kitchen and make a sandwich.

 

For me, I also see this as the 2 ends of the Dunning-Kruger spectrum, ignorant confidence and aware fecklessness. In the movie AI they discuss a painting and how it requires a willingness to err to take the first brush stroke. I see in all of us a combination of these 2 qualities, feminine and masculine. Is initiative a masculine or feminine trait? Is ignorant confidence male or female? As granularity increases the separation of these 2 qualities continues to mix. Saying a trait is all male, or all female isn't very true. Depends on the framesize (granularity). When its sandwich-making-time, women are active. But as a general rule, men are active and women are passive. Truth depends on the frame.

 

I think the big bang explodes (real from imaginary) because of a willingness to be wrong, and a desire to consume others resources into something anything (no purpose). I've felt that impulse while playing legos with another kid. You sit there with your pile, and look at their pile, and you are like "nice laser gun ya got there..., sure would look cool on my spaceship"

 

All of this assumes "creation" instead of eternal elements, as well as agentive First Cause. I get the feeling you would have emotional objections to these assumptions. I've never heard an emotionally-neutral intellectually-driven alternative.

 

Quote:

 

Nothingness cannot be aeternal because nothingness is not a substance and therefore cannot explain itself, cannot justify its own nonexistence.

 

I don't think this is good thinking. If a thing cannot justify its nonexistence, it ceases to exist? If this happened to nothing, it would THEN satisfy its identity. You are treating it like something when dealing with what makes it true. Nothing always is. It's unstoppably there. Before reality, in spite of reality, after reality. Nothing is non-contingent. If a part of it BECOMES contingent, it separates from it and assumes a new identity.

 

The Big Bang is a contingency-naming process. Constraint and limitation is what definition and differentiation are about. "Let there be light" implicitly creates darkness, BY DIVISION. They are constrained to not be the same thing. Before that, not so much. That's what singularity means.

[soundwave86]

Space isn't empty. Things aren't popping into existence. They're coming into and out of perception.

 

What exactly are you anxious about? Are you worried you'll pop out existence or does it make you feel insane with people proposing insane views of reality? You will eventually die and at that point, consciously, you'll no longer exist, just as you didn't consciously exist before your were conceived.

 

 

Why? In what way does this have any effect on the way people treat one another for example?

 

There was a thread once that made the case that there's no such thing as nothingness existentially because even in space, the place between particles is filled with something. I tried to find the thread, but could not. It was an interesting read.

I have had a big hindrance in letting it go, leading me and another psychiatrist point to psychosis.

It used to be just a normal difficult to let go leading me to think my OCD is to blame,

But it still wouldn't go.  Even if i absorb the discussion and come to some conclusions the feeling that its not right is still there.  

Meaning i am assigning the feeling this idea.  That is what happens in OCD but it has been a lot more intense and debilitating than the rest of my OCD which is harm related so...

 

anyway I am making progress.  

 

Thankyou so much for this discussion.  I will read and absorb.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

[rosencrantz]

Things aren't popping into existence. 

 

Of course they do. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effectfor details.

[thebeardslastcall]

Of course they do. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effectfor details.

 

Not sure how that counters me exactly. My statement was made also in the context with the following statement of consciousness. You could say consciousness is popping into and out of existence in basically the same way you can say so for particles. But that's just because people mistakenly think of particles as units. I have a different theory that seems to explain what people are observing without energy randomly being created or destroyed. Ball goes up and then falls down. The energy is changing form in a manner, but calling that " 'Ball going up' popping out of existence" and then " 'ball going down' popping into existence" isn't an accurate way to describe the situation, and that's basically what people seem to be saying from my interpretation.

[rosencrantz]

But that's just because people mistakenly think of particles as units. 

 

 

No physicist does that and what lay people think doesn't matter, frankly. Electrons are part of a field (Psi), that is agitated and localized. 

 

I have a different theory that seems to explain what people are observing without energy randomly being created or destroyed.

 

You are 70 years late. Feynman explains the process for lay people in his lectures on QED.

[Donnadogsoth]

My thought is that it (nothing) explicitly is.

 

Nothing is, regardless of whether something also is.

 

I think the better framing is "why something, as well as nothing".

 

It's not in place of, its on top of. Real is in addition to (and from) the imaginary, not mutually exclusive with.

 

The Big Bang singularity is nothing. There is no meaning, complexity, density, time, etc inside it. All these terms are empty. It's "existence" is imaginary at this point. As men we seek emptiness (especially of balls). Well, there it is at the singularity. It's where we come from, and the cosmic egg we try to return to. Men seek emptiness, while women seek fullness (psychological reason they struggle with overeating).

 

Why something? This sounds like a question for a feminine aspect of creation (fractal ethereal Eve), who eats the fruit and reality ensues. We had nothing, and emptiness. Now we have something, and fullness. Pandora's box is open.

 

Men strive to crush reality into an understandable box, to solve the rubix cube, to enclose all options into a single objective hierarchy/system as a mastermind determinor. Women try to experience the whole thing, to sample the breadth without containing it, to live inside the subjective, as a leaf on the wind without agency nor control.

 

Nothing is. It's attached to the last eyelash on your right eye. Tell me how its not.

 

I don't think one can really understand the question without also understanding why men work themselves to death trying to get $ for their family (expend their strength to achieve emptiness). The quest to consume oneself in the service of a higher objective is part of a pair. The other half is why something.

 

When a man actively ejaculates into the passive woman he spends his lifeforce on her. He experiences a mini-death. Not a dirtnap, just a nap. He is empty, and can rest (now passive). She is then empowered with fullness (no longer passive), and life proliferates. Probably a good time for her to go into the kitchen and make a sandwich.

 

For me, I also see this as the 2 ends of the Dunning-Kruger spectrum, ignorant confidence and aware fecklessness. In the movie AI they discuss a painting and how it requires a willingness to err to take the first brush stroke. I see in all of us a combination of these 2 qualities, feminine and masculine. Is initiative a masculine or feminine trait? Is ignorant confidence male or female? As granularity increases the separation of these 2 qualities continues to mix. Saying a trait is all male, or all female isn't very true. Depends on the framesize (granularity). When its sandwich-making-time, women are active. But as a general rule, men are active and women are passive. Truth depends on the frame.

 

I think the big bang explodes (real from imaginary) because of a willingness to be wrong, and a desire to consume others resources into something anything (no purpose). I've felt that impulse while playing legos with another kid. You sit there with your pile, and look at their pile, and you are like "nice laser gun ya got there..., sure would look cool on my spaceship"

 

All of this assumes "creation" instead of eternal elements, as well as agentive First Cause. I get the feeling you would have emotional objections to these assumptions. I've never heard an emotionally-neutral intellectually-driven alternative.

 

Quote:

 

Nothingness cannot be aeternal because nothingness is not a substance and therefore cannot explain itself, cannot justify its own nonexistence.

 

I don't think this is good thinking. If a thing cannot justify its nonexistence, it ceases to exist? If this happened to nothing, it would THEN satisfy its identity. You are treating it like something when dealing with what makes it true. Nothing always is. It's unstoppably there. Before reality, in spite of reality, after reality. Nothing is non-contingent. If a part of it BECOMES contingent, it separates from it and assumes a new identity.

 

The Big Bang is a contingency-naming process. Constraint and limitation is what definition and differentiation are about. "Let there be light" implicitly creates darkness, BY DIVISION. They are constrained to not be the same thing. Before that, not so much. That's what singularity means.

 

You write interestingly but I'm not sure I grasp what you're saying in its entirely. Let me treat with your objection to my sentence:

 

 

Nothingness cannot be aeternal because nothingness is not a substance and therefore cannot explain itself, cannot justify its own nonexistence.

 

 

I don't think this is good thinking. If a thing cannot justify its nonexistence, it ceases to exist? If this happened to nothing, it would THEN satisfy its identity. You are treating it like something when dealing with what makes it true. Nothing always is. It's unstoppably there. Before reality, in spite of reality, after reality. Nothing is non-contingent. If a part of it BECOMES contingent, it separates from it and assumes a new identity.

 

Thank you, it was an ill-phrasing. Let me restate in my second attack on this slippery beast.

 

Nothing lacks substance, by definition. That which lacks substance lacks predicates. That which lacks predicates cannot be said to be aeternal or contingent. This leaves substance as the only candidate for aeternity.

 

When you say, “Nothing is. It's attached to the last eyelash on your right eye. Tell me how its not,” I say, there is nothing to nothing. We derive our notion of “nothing” from mere gaps, absences, pining for something. But all of those gaps are filled with something: space, tears, blank paper, or what have you. Contrariwise, the sort of nothing we are talking about here is a rarefied dishonest sort of imaginative thing like a square circle that collapses into mere no-thing. It can't be visualised, because it has no reality. Only substance has reality. Nothing is not attached to anything. In the beginning there was the aeternal substance which spoke the world into being, creating the contingent substances. Nothing had nothing to do with it.

[Donnadogsoth]

A better way to explain the matter is this:

 

Take the sentence, "What reason is there for there being anything rather than nothing?"

 

This sentence avoids the "why" problem of intent, and the "how" problem of physics, and instead situates it firmly in metaphysics. 

 

The thing to realise is why this problem is so slippery:  the word "nothing" is ill-defined.  What is "nothing"?  You might say "emptiness" or "absence" or "vacuum," to which I say, give me an example in real life of "nothing".  You point to an empty can of beans.  I say, "That's filled with air".  You point to the night sky, and I say, "It's filled with black."  You give me a vacuum tube and I say, "It's filled with space."  So go ahead, point to anything that we can say is "nothing" at all, with no qualities, no predicates, nothing.

 

What we face here is a word that is a square circle.  Just as the term "square circle" refers to a composite of two ideas, "square" and "circle" merged into a single incoherent jumble, so "nothing" refers to an intuition based on the experience of lack of some quality replaced by another quality.  The spaces between my fingers are, in a sense, empty, but they are not nothing, they have shape and dimension and purpose.  I would find it hard to manipulate many objects if I lacked these spaces.  So, nowhere is there anything utterly lacking in substance.

 

If we can't point to it, even in principle, even if we were God, then it doesn't exist.  It cannot be real.  It cannot be the subject of a fact.  Thus, there cannot be "nothing."  There can only be "something".  And as discussed previously, "something" can be either contingent or aeternal.  But since contingent things by definition lack justification for their existence, there must exist something which is aeternal substance, and this is the Something that exists rather than "nothing".

[HasMat]

 

You write interestingly but I'm not sure I grasp what you're saying in its entirely. Let me treat with your objection to my sentence:

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you, it was an ill-phrasing. Let me restate in my second attack on this slippery beast.

 

Nothing lacks substance, by definition. That which lacks substance lacks predicates. That which lacks predicates cannot be said to be aeternal or contingent. This leaves substance as the only candidate for aeternity.

 

When you say, “Nothing is. It's attached to the last eyelash on your right eye. Tell me how its not,” I say, there is nothing to nothing. We derive our notion of “nothing” from mere gaps, absences, pining for something. But all of those gaps are filled with something: space, tears, blank paper, or what have you. Contrariwise, the sort of nothing we are talking about here is a rarefied dishonest sort of imaginative thing like a square circle that collapses into mere no-thing. It can't be visualised, because it has no reality. Only substance has reality. Nothing is not attached to anything. In the beginning there was the aeternal substance which spoke the world into being, creating the contingent substances. Nothing had nothing to do with it.

 

That which lacks predicates cannot be said to be aeternal

 

I don't understand this. I haven't ever thought along these lines, but it seems to me that lacking predicates is a good start towards becoming eternal, because then you don't have a loose thread for someone to pull on and undo you. I would think the less predicates an item has (such as Mjolnir), the more indestructible it becomes. You can't destroy the idea of love because it has no physical predicates to operate on. Nothing is completely inaccessible. As soon as you put a contingency on it (which gives an angle to attack), it stops being nothing.

[soundwave86]

A better way to explain the matter is this:

 

Take the sentence, "What reason is there for there being anything rather than nothing?"

 

This sentence avoids the "why" problem of intent, and the "how" problem of physics, and instead situates it firmly in metaphysics. 

 

The thing to realise is why this problem is so slippery:  the word "nothing" is ill-defined.  What is "nothing"?  You might say "emptiness" or "absence" or "vacuum," to which I say, give me an example in real life of "nothing".  You point to an empty can of beans.  I say, "That's filled with air".  You point to the night sky, and I say, "It's filled with black."  You give me a vacuum tube and I say, "It's filled with space."  So go ahead, point to anything that we can say is "nothing" at all, with no qualities, no predicates, nothing.

 

What we face here is a word that is a square circle.  Just as the term "square circle" refers to a composite of two ideas, "square" and "circle" merged into a single incoherent jumble, so "nothing" refers to an intuition based on the experience of lack of some quality replaced by another quality.  The spaces between my fingers are, in a sense, empty, but they are not nothing, they have shape and dimension and purpose.  I would find it hard to manipulate many objects if I lacked these spaces.  So, nowhere is there anything utterly lacking in substance.

 

If we can't point to it, even in principle, even if we were God, then it doesn't exist.  It cannot be real.  It cannot be the subject of a fact.  Thus, there cannot be "nothing."  There can only be "something".  And as discussed previously, "something" can be either contingent or aeternal.  But since contingent things by definition lack justification for their existence, there must exist something which is aeternal substance, and this is the Something that exists rather than "nothing".

I totally agree.  This was part of my argument. How on earth could there be such thing as 'nothing'. The meaning is meaningless.

 

...I am someone who genuinely suffers mental illness, but there is a lot of wisdom in some of the paradigms i wish to discuss.  I will do well to explore this site.

To everyone else, thank-you i am slowly absorbing your arguments.

[Donnadogsoth]

That which lacks predicates cannot be said to be aeternal

 

I don't understand this. I haven't ever thought along these lines, but it seems to me that lacking predicates is a good start towards becoming eternal, because then you don't have a loose thread for someone to pull on and undo you. I would think the less predicates an item has (such as Mjolnir), the more indestructible it becomes. You can't destroy the idea of love because it has no physical predicates to operate on. Nothing is completely inaccessible. As soon as you put a contingency on it (which gives an angle to attack), it stops being nothing.

 

 

“Aeternal” is a predicate. “Nothing” in an absolute sense, is that which lacks all predicates and therefore is not real, does not exist, cannot be pointed to, etc.., and therefore cannot take the place of the aeternal substance. As you say, it is completely inaccessible—and therefore is just a mental illusion like a circular square.

 

The idea of love is a conception. It therefore has conceptualness.

[soundwave86]

Nothingness

 

So how come there isn't just 'nothing'. Science explains that quantum physics could help understand things like particles comnig in and out of existence and what was beffore the big bang. But my mind still isn't happy. I seem to have created a subconscious conflict about it but i can't pinpoint it exactly. Can i overcome this watching videos? Reading articles?

 

So the energy in the universe may cancel itself out. So it doesnt need something outside.

 

It shouldn't be obsessive compulsive, like taking my attention away all the time.

 

There is no such thing as nothing in the context i am stuck on because even in empty space the space is filled with something.

 

The obsessive compulsiveness has made me some scar tissue making life difficult.  I am making progress however my attention is coming back.

 

Hmm I guess nothing is just a word we use to describe the absence of something but there's still going to be something.

[soundwave86]

its almost like im doubting that we should be something

[soundwave86]

On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 1:44 PM, ProfessionalTeabagger said:

 

So its a paradox.  But its still bugging me.  Help!

[soundwave86]

Not going away.  Please help!

[barn]

Hi @soundwave86

(this post is a tad bit science heavy, tried to make it 'easy on the stomach')

5 hours ago, soundwave86 said:

Science explains that quantum physics could help understand things like particles comnig in and out of existence and what was beffore the big bang.

(highlighted, above) refers to 'virtual particles', a conceptual tool, though with observable effects.

i. e. - the word 'nothing' which is (as you can see, 'something') also conceptual and we can use nevertheless

Speaking to the above, something supplementary and semi-related; something you might be interested to read about (or maybe not) :

(ref.s below and within, as usual)

0. Matter and antimatter annihilates each other (to 'nada, zlit, nil, big-fat-goose-egg') meanwhile releasing intense energy in form of photons, and various other less massive matter-antimatter pairs.

° One of the best demonstration for the existence of a type of antimatter (or proof of concept here for anti-electron, +1e) is the contemporary & real-life application of it in the field of medical imaging. There's a machine called Positron Emission Tomography scanner (PET) where basically small 'fireworks' inside the body are being recorded in 3D + time (simplified). I'll leave a link, below if you want to read about it.
The convenient part here is that it works perfectly with cells that have glucose uptake and since our brain consumes a lot of it(relatively) , tracer concentration (like paint poured into clear water) comes through very neatly. Visualisations such as this one can be acquired using the imaging of 'these' matter-antimatter annihilations.

° Antimatter is really, very, truly volatile when it comes to releasing a huge amount of energy. (i.e. Boom!) It's matter to energy conversion rate is so high that 1 g produces ~ 43 kilotons of explosive force. For comparison, the 'A-bomb' dropped on Hiroshima ("Little boy") was ~20 kilotons, roughly ~0.5g of antimatter's explosive force ; that's mind-blowing (respectfully, no pun intended).

° It's also very expensive, probably not as much as the civilization destroying welfare with all its negative consequences (which is in itself already should take your breath away... in a bad way); it is around 63 trillion dollars to produce 1g of antimatter.

I guess where I was going with these is to say, it's a really expansive and hard to grasp universe out there (likewise the 'inner-universe'), taking a small slice of it doesn't give a good enough picture of the 'ginormous and vastly huge slices' nor the 'much smaller, perhaps more petite' than Planck-length sized ones we too have trouble describing. We need to keep exploring more, inside & outside, Greater & 'tinier' proportions. But not create illusions where either anxiety or conformity are manifested(imo).

Thanks for reading

Ref. s

° virtual particle

° antimatter / ->positron<-

° P. E. T.

° (not settled, sorry Stephen, RIP) Hawking radiation

[soundwave86]

Why is it such a problem for me?

Maybe my reasoning as kid rejecting deitys and such caused a subconsious conflict when no one else understood me.

The science is indeed mind blowing I do like it.  I think my understanding of 'nothing' has been somewhat wrong.

its a description of the absence of something right, but the fact that we are 'something' causes me anxiety I guess.

maybe as my attention improves the science will help me.

 

[barn]

1 hour ago, soundwave86 said:

Why is it such a problem for me?

Maybe my reasoning as kid rejecting deitys and such caused a subconsious conflict when no one else understood me.

The science is indeed mind blowing I do like it.  I think my understanding of 'nothing' has been somewhat wrong.

its a description of the absence of something right, but the fact that we are 'something' causes me anxiety I guess.

maybe as my attention improves the science will help me.

 

I can see that you are very good at asking questions including the lack of things. (it's also easier than my next proposed direction)

How about the other side of the same coin?

i.e.

" X is something, I seem to be declaring as to be a known thing for me.

How do I know what I claim to know? "

I warm-heartedly recommend you learnt and applied the scientific method for evaluating what seems real to you and used feelings as supplementary guiding stones.

The Scientific Method

Or Six Sigma

(in production)

But for starters, I would make sure 'my room was clean and tidy', helping me in that has been GTD (for the last 3 years)

[soundwave86]

Sorry I don't fully understand yet.

I know X is something because I can perceive it.  I think therefore I am.  But this causes me anxiety.  

Why does it cause me anxiety? apart from the fact that ive grown up with it unfortunately.  But it should dissipate.

 

33 minutes ago, barn said:

I can see that you are very good at asking questions including the lack of things. (it's also easier than my next proposed direction)

How about the other side of the same coin?

i.e.

" X is something, I seem to be declaring as to be a known thing for me.

How do I know what I claim to know? " 

 

[barn]

15 minutes ago, soundwave86 said:

Sorry I don't fully understand yet.

I know X is something because I can perceive it.  I think therefore I am.  But this causes me anxiety.  

Why does it cause me anxiety? apart from the fact that ive grown up with it unfortunately.  But it should dissipate.

 All good.

i.e.

" My car is broken.

How do I know that's true?

Because it won't start.

Is it not starting because it's broken down or there could be another reason I haven't yet noticed, considered?

What have I considered so far?

Nothing really, other than I can't drive it because it won't start.

What's the most effective way of inspecting a car, at my level of knowledge?

Here.-> A list

I've checked the list, turns out item no. 7 was the cause, loose connection on the car battery.

My car starts up, confirmed.

Note to self: An observation,... Had I not re-examined what I claimed to know and how I knew it, I wouldn't have re-examined my convictions and probably wouldn't have found a simple and good solution, wouldn't have been able to see reality. Reviewing what I claim to know and how I know is a good idea. I'm doing it more from this point on. "

[soundwave86]

So I guess I don't really know that there is anything wrong with 'something' or 'nothing'.  A mistook my doubt as a philosophical question.  But this will all prove so so helpful.  

In the context i'm kinda ruminating on, would we have one without the other? No, I don't think so, it wouldn't be observable.  Nevertheless i'm sure zero is useful in maths.

Sorry I still have an unwanted 'obsession'.  But the scientific method should help me change my brain.

 

[barn]

56 minutes ago, soundwave86 said:

So I guess I don't really know that there is anything wrong with 'something' or 'nothing'.  A mistook my doubt as a philosophical question.  But this will all prove so so helpful.  

In the context i'm kinda ruminating on, would we have one without the other? No, I don't think so, it wouldn't be observable.  Nevertheless i'm sure zero is useful in maths.

Sorry I still have an unwanted 'obsession'.  But the scientific method should help me change my brain.

I wish you to see the available options at your disposal and be mindful of what choices you took, take.

If you choose to utilise some, any I had shared with you, that's up to you. The same as if you chose to disregard them or not choose at all and keep standing where you are right now.

I'm only putting forward what made my life better, what you decide to do with the information is...

[soundwave86]

Reading all of this and not responding to any disturbing feelings.  I catch my brain trying to... I can't explain.

I will read again tomorrow, the next day and the next day.

[barn]

7 minutes ago, soundwave86 said:

Reading all of this and not responding to any disturbing feelings.  I catch my brain trying to... I can't explain.

I will read again tomorrow, the next day and the next day.

Don't be too hard on yourself, what's more, give yourself credit for doing good things... I know it's a weak start, but I for one think you deserve credit for keeping at it!

Maybe keeping a brief diary daily, so you could make the positive more visible?

Have you heard about Nathaniel Branden's sentence competition exercises?

You could be productive doing that on a regular basis, maybe twice a week at first?

[RichardY]

Will to Power - Nietzsche

616 (1885-1886) That the value of the world lies in our interpretation (--that other interpretations than merely human ones are perhaps somewhere possible--); that previous interpretations have been perspective valuations by virtue of which we can survive in life, i. e., in the will to power, for the growth of power; that every elevation of man brings with it the overcoming of narrower interpretations; that every strengthening and increase of power opens up new perspectives and means believing in new horizons--this idea permeates my writings. The world with which we are concerned is false, i. e., is not a fact but a fable and approximation on the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for--there is no "truth."

----------------------------------
"there is no truth". What I think Nietzsche means is: "no truth". Would suggest a singular particular kind of truth, through the "no". Where as in principle truth, should be be all encompassing and universal. Where as we are "in truth" and truth is therefore relative, and nothing in particular. The use of THE Truth suggests a seperate object. Instead of the Truth, perhaps a certain striving for an increase in consciousness, maybe more appropriate. An individual exploration of the unknown, as opposed to a comparison of the known.

 

------------------------

617 (1883-1885) To impose upon becoming the character of being--that is the supreme will to power . Twofold falsification, on the part of the senses and of the spirit, to preserve a world of that which is, which abides, which is equivalent, etc . That everything recurs is the closest approximation of a world of becoming to a world of being:--high point of the meditation. From the values attributed to being proceed the condemnation of and discontent with becoming, after such a world of being had first been invented .

The metamorphoses of what has being (body, God, ideas, laws of nature, formulas, etc . ) "Beings" as appearance; reversal of values; appearance was that which conferred value--. Knowledge-in-itself in a world of becoming is impossible; so how is knowledge possible? As error concerning oneself, as will to power, as will to deception. Becoming as invention, willing, self-denial, overcoming of oneself: no subject but an action, a positing, creative, no "causes and effects." Art as the will to overcome becoming, as "eternalization, " but shortsighted, depending on the perspective: repeating in miniature, as it were, the tendency of the whole. Regarding that which all life reveals as a diminutive formula for the total tendency; hence a new definition of the concept "life" as will to power .

Instead of "cause and effect" the mutual struggle of that which becomes, often with the absorption of one's opponent; the number of becoming elements not constant. Uselessness of old ideals for the interpretation of the totality of events, once one knows the animal origin and utility of these ideals; all, moreover, contradictory to life. Uselessness of the mechanistic theory--it gives the impression of meaninglessness . The entire idealism of mankind hitherto is on the point of changing suddenly into nihilism--into the belief in absolute worthlessness, i. e., meaninglessness. The destruction of ideals, the new desert; new arts by means of which we can endure it, we amphibians.

- Presupposition: bravery, patience, no "turning back," no haste to go forward. (N. B. Zarathustra adopts a parodistic attitude toward all former values as a conseguence of his abundance.)

----------------------------

Like a gyroscope. If there is no fixed point, one must adjust to the event horizon. Not to combat it, against a tide of chaos against which you can never prevail. But to accept what chaos you can, and change the rest.

-------------------------

Twilight of the Idols - Nietzsche

With the highest respect, I exclude the name of Heraclitus.     When the rest of the philosophic crowd rejected the testimony of the senses because it showed multiplicity and change, he rejected their testimony because it represented things as if they had permanence and unity.  Heraclitus too did the senses an injustice.  They lie neither in the way the Eleatics believed, nor as he believed — they do not lie at all.  What we make of their testimony, that alone introduces lies; for example, the lie of unity, the lie of thinghood, of substance, of permanence.  "Reason" is the reason we falsify the testimony of the senses.  Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie.  But Heraclitus will remain eternally right with his assertion that being is an empty fiction.  The "apparent" world is the only one: the "true" world is merely added by a lie.  

------------------------------

 

 

 

 

[soundwave86]

My brain seems to bring up disturbing feelings 'cos...

it thinks that because we have a word for 'nothing', there shouldn't be something.

this is wrong and dangerous.  I need to fight for reality.

[barn]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

->   Hi voter, yes I saw your opinion. Not sure why but that's up to you. Thanks though (for the views too) .

[neeeel]

11 minutes ago, soundwave86 said:

My brain seems to bring up disturbing feelings 'cos...

it thinks that because we have a word for 'nothing', there shouldn't be something.

this is wrong and dangerous.  I need to fight for reality.

 

I dont think the science lessons in this thread are helpful to you, when its likely not about science and reason for you at all.

You say your brain brings up disturbing feelings. Can you expand on that a bit more?