What is nothingness?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Arguing from ignorance does not contribute to the discussion. Science can go down to the plank level of Quantum mechanics and describes objectively a boundless Quantum World at the plank scale governed by Quantum Mechanics. It is not even remotely possible that there is some sort absolutely nothing beyond this.

We would need some objective verifiable evidence to go beyond this, and none is forthcoming.

If already pointed out, as I haven't read pages 2 to 5, I apologize.
You are doing philosophy in the end, because you assume that you have solved in effect Agrippa's Trilemma, justified true beliefs, solipsism and what "das Ding an sich" is. Objectivity is a belief, that seems to work, but at the end it is a belief, that requires faith.
You can't avoid that you have subjective beliefs of what "das Ding an sich" is and thus that you have subjective beliefs about what "objective evidence" is.

 

[shunyadragon]

If already pointed out, as I haven't read pages 2 to 5, I apologize.
You are doing philosophy in the end, because you assume that you have solved in effect Agrippa's Trilemma, justified true beliefs, solipsism and what "das Ding an sich" is. Objectivity is a belief, that seems to work, but at the end it is a belief, that requires faith.
You can't avoid that you have subjective beliefs of what "das Ding an sich" is and thus that you have subjective beliefs about what "objective evidence" is.

Your creating a high fog index and blue, smoke and mirrors. Specifically no, there is a clear distinction between beliefs and philosophy of the mind only, and not based on objective verifiable evidence that is the basis of science, and the reasons airplanes fly and computers work.

As far as Agrippa's Trilemma, I do not claim to solve anything, and there is no need to. It is an ancient philosophy of skepticism and we have come along way since. It is only relevant in that the concepts such as circularity have modern forms, and concepts like the infinite regress of cause and reason are not longer relevant to contemporary science. Science is based on the assumption of the uniformity of Natural Laws over time and space. At present the falsification of theories and hypothesis has confirmed the predictability of scientific methods based on this assumption throughout the history of science since before Newton and computers work and airplanes fly. The starting point for science is the uniformity and predictability of Natural Laws,

For more information on Aguippa' skepticism see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/#AgrFivMod

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your creating a high fog index and blue, smoke and mirrors. Specifically no, there is a clear distinction between beliefs and philosophy of the mind only, and not based on objective verifiable evidence that is the basis of science, and the reasons airplanes fly and computers work.

As far as Agrippa's Trilemma, I do not claim to solve anything, and there is no need to. It is an ancient philosophy of skepticism and we have come along way since. It is only relevant in that the concepts such as circularity have modern forms, and concepts like the infinite regress of cause and reason are not longer relevant to contemporary science. Science is based on the assumption of the uniformity of Natural Laws over time and space. At present the falsification of theories and hypothesis has confirmed the predictability of scientific methods based on this assumption throughout the history of science since before Newton and computers work and airplanes fly. The starting point for science is the uniformity and predictability of Natural Laws,

There are no Natural Laws at present since there is no united theory in science for all of the world. Why use an assumption of something that is no so, when you check at present.
The problem is this: You and other assume that reality must make sense in toto. That is not a given. As it stands there are reasons to assume that there will never be a united theory of the world. Now I don't know the future and nor do you, but to start with something that bias your understanding of reality, because it limits, how you understand reality, could be problematic, if you want to be honest about what you can do and can't do. In the end to be a skeptic to me, is to be honest about the possibilities and limitations of being human.
That you accept that science is based on that - the uniformity of Natural Laws over time and space -, is subjective in you and those who do so. You don't have to do science assuming that reality can be explain in the end with objective evidence and nothing else.
If I recall correct, you stated to the effect that "subjectivity is a problem". The joke about that is that subjectivity is only a problem subjectively. If subjectivity is real and a fundamental part of being a human, then you can't explain how the world or reality works if you deny it as relevant.

That is where it ends. It has not to do with you in particular, rather it is a bias in favor of objectivity, that overdo what you can do objectively.
In other words - since we are debating the world and you and I are a part of it, you can't claim objective authority over.anything. Nor can I. I am just pointing out that I do subjectivity subjectively different that you.

So here is how I view science. Science is a human behavior and since all human behavior have limits so far, I see no reason to start with the assumption that there is no limit to science. Of course, you can't rule it out, but if you start with the idea that reality/the world must make sense in toto, then you can't accept that it doesn't, because the assumption is, that it must.
So that is the bias in effect. The world has a set of Natural Laws that work for all of the world. That is not a given. Maybe there is a God, that created us in such a way, that our knowledge is limited and that includes the Natural Laws.

Regards
Mikkel

PS Skepticism is not over. It is still present in philosophy.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are no Natural Laws at present since there is no united theory in science for all of the world. Why use an assumption of something that is no so, when you check at present.

There is no need nor even possible for defining the absolute knowledge of Natural Laws, and science makes no assumption that we have a unified theory for science to work. It is simply the predictability and conformation of the existence of Natural Laws that the nature of our physical existence is predicable and understandable.

The problem is this: You and other assume that reality must make sense in toto. That is not a given.

No that is not a given, not toto nor is it necessary. The only thing that needs to make sense is the predictability and conformity in science as it applies to our universe. The definition of Methodological Naturalism.

As it stands there are reasons to assume that there will never be a united theory of the world. Now I don't know the future and nor do you, but to start with something that bias your understanding of reality, because it limits, how you understand reality, could be problematic, if you want to be honest about what you can do and can't do. In the end to be a skeptic to me, is to be honest about the possibilities and limitations of being human.
That you accept that science is based on that - the uniformity of Natural Laws over time and space -, is subjective in you and those who do so. You don't have to do science assuming that reality can be explain in the end with objective evidence and nothing else.
If I recall correct, you stated to the effect that "subjectivity is a problem". The joke about that is that subjectivity is only a problem subjectively. If subjectivity is real and a fundamental part of being a human, then you can't explain how the world or reality works if you deny it as relevant.

That is where it ends. It has not to do with you in particular, rather it is a bias in favor of objectivity, that overdo what you can do objectively.
In other words - since we are debating the world and you and I are a part of it, you can't claim objective authority over.anything. Nor can I. I am just pointing out that I do subjectivity subjectively different that you.

So here is how I view science. Science is a human behavior and since all human behavior have limits so far, I see no reason to start with the assumption that there is no limit to science. Of course, you can't rule it out, but if you start with the idea that reality/the world must make sense in toto, then you can't accept that it doesn't, because the assumption is, that it must.

So that is the bias in effect. The world has a set of Natural Laws that work for all of the world. That is not a given. Maybe there is a God, that created us in such a way, that our knowledge is limited and that includes the Natural Laws.

Regards
Mikkel

Scientists clearly acknowledges the limits of science, and does not claim that there is not a limit to science, no problem.

Your ridiculous claim needs explanation.

PS Skepticism is not over. It is still present in philosophy.

. . . present in science in more practical applications, and not in the view of ancient skepticism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...The definition of Methodological Naturalism.

...

Okay, so far so good. We agree. The rest from my point of view has to do with subjectivity and scientism, but that is a derail in a sense, so we won't go there.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay, so far so good. We agree.

No, we do not remotely agree, The basis for Methodological Naturalism is that there is objective verifiable evidence to base objective theories Science by its nature is objective.

The rest from my point of view has to do with subjectivity and scientism, but that is a derail in a sense, so we won't go there.

There is apparently where you are at.

You have failed to define 'subjectivity' concerning science. The word 'Scientism' is a bogus anti-science named calling based on an agenda. So far you have made bogus accusation of science like scientists do not consider science to have limits, without an objective explanation

By definition of Methodological Naturalism is not subjective, it is objective based on objective verifiable evidence.

The main problem with your view is that it serves no more practical significance in the contemporary world than the ancient skepticism of Agrippa.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, we do not remotely agree, The basis for Methodological Naturalism is that there is objective verifiable evidence to base objective theories Science by its nature is objective.





There is apparently where you are at.

You have failed to define 'subjectivity' concerning science. The word 'Scientism' is a bogus anti-science named calling based on an agenda. So far you have made bogus accusation of science like scientists do not consider science to have limits, without an objective explanation

By definition of Methodological Naturalism is not subjective, it is objective based on objective verifiable evidence.

The main problem with your view is that it serves no more practical significance in the contemporary world than the ancient skepticism of Agrippa.

Any practical purpose or significance is subjective in part. You are a subjective human, who claims objectivity over what is practical including how to understand science. But you are doing it in the philosophy sub-forum and making yourself the objective judge over all human understanding and practical purpose.
I.e. you can't show with objective evidence what is a practical significance for all of the world. Hence for all of the world you claim that only Methodological Naturalism matters. That is subjective.
Science is an inter-subjective human behavior with a normative ethics about what you ought to do in regards to some aspects of the world, i.e. the objective in some sense. But not all of the world is objective and not all of the world can be do using science.

Now if you agree with this - that science is a limited human behavior, we can leave it there. If you in effect still want to claim objective authority over practical significance for all human life and existence, do so.

Here is subjectivity for you:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

That the world is natural and physical, is not so of the world. The world is more that the Natural Laws.

Now if you rely mean that science has limits, then it is in effect because of the subjective, but then that can't be a problem. Because that is in part how the world works. That is where it ends with the limit of science.
If you think that is a problem, then that is not science. Then that is your personal problem.

 

[shunyadragon]

Any practical purpose or significance is subjective in part.

No to be objectively practical requires an object foundation in a uniform and predicable physical world.You know, like computers work and airplanes fly.

You are a subjective human, who claims objectivity over what is practical including how to understand science. But you are doing it in the philosophy sub-forum and making yourself the objective judge over all human understanding and practical purpose.

No, I like you are fallible humans. The question of objectivity and subjectivity is related to how fallible humans relate to the world around us in terms of objective science and subjective theological and philosophical beliefs.

I.e. you can't show with objective evidence what is a practical significance for all of the world.

You need to clarify what you mean by 'all of the world,' because it is matter of fact the concept of objective evidence only applies to the physical world we live in by 'practical' means.

If you are including other 'subjective' worlds of Gods, spirits, or mythical beliefs in terms of 'all of the world' then you are dealing with the subjective nature of 'all in the world.'

Hence for all of the world you claim that only Methodological Naturalism matters. That is subjective.Science is an inter-subjective human behavior with a normative ethics about what you ought to do in regards to some aspects of the world, i.e. the objective in some sense. But not all of the world is objective and not all of the world can be do using science.

Again, you need to define what you are calling 'all in the world.' The bold is too contorted for me to respond to. Except maybe you are drifting over to the religious ought' concepts of morals and ethics, which is another story and it definitely injects a subjective perspective where there are behavioral science concepts and philosophical/theological perspectives. This direction of the discussion goes down Alice's Rabbit hole, and involves a whole separate thread.

Now if you agree with this - that science is a limited human behavior, we can leave it there. If you in effect still want to claim objective authority over practical significance for all human life and existence, do so.

No science does not consider it limited by human behavior in the context you are using it, and no we cannot leave it there.

Here is subjectivity for you:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do.

This is not subjectivity. There is an objective boundary of the limits of science is limited to the availability of the objective verifiable nature of our physical existence. Beyond this there is the philosophical and theological subjective world of beliefs that lack evidence,

That the world is natural and physical, is not so of the world. The world is more that the Natural Laws.

Simply science does not address other worlds, or the existence or non-existence of Gods This is acknowledged as beyond the limits of science.

Now if you rely mean that science has limits, then it is in effect because of the subjective, but then that can't be a problem. Because that is in part how the world works. That is where it ends with the limit of science.
If you think that is a problem, then that is not science. Then that is your personal problem.

Science only deals with the objective specifically the objective verifiable evidence. What is subjective is that which is beyond physical universe in other subjective worlds. In the subjective worlds, beliefs cannot be objectively verified therefor they are extremely variable and often contradictory, and there is no possibly theory nor hypothesis that can confirm predictability, objectivity, or consistency.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... Simply science does not address other worlds, or the existence or non-existence of Gods This is acknowledged as beyond the limits of science. ...

To you. Not to all humans, which claim science.

For the rest, I apologize. I am barking up the wrong tree. You do understand what science is.

 

[shunyadragon]

To you. Not to all humans, which claim science.

Needs clarification. Not just me, but pretty much the standard of science universally is that questions concerning subjective worlds and Gods outside our physical existence, is outside the objective world of science.

If one makes the subjective assumptions that Gods do not exist, as well as all possible subjective worlds beyond our physical existence than they are making a subjective philosophical assumption which we call Metaphysical Naturalism.

In fact I believe in a 'Source' some call God's, but realize this belief is subjective, because I am a fallible human being.

Maybe back to the philosophical/theological absolute nothing, which is a subjective belief versus the Quantum nothing, which describes the Quantum world at the Plank scale of our physical existence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Needs clarification. Not just me, but pretty much the standard of science universally is that questions concerning subjective worlds and Gods outside our physical existence, is outside the objective world of science.

If one makes the subjective assumptions that Gods do not exist, as well as all possible subjective worlds beyond our physical existence than they are making a subjective philosophical assumption which we call Metaphysical Naturalism.

In fact I believe in a 'Source' some call God's, but realize this belief is subjective, because I am a fallible human being.

Maybe back to the philosophical/theological absolute nothing, which is a subjective belief versus the Quantum nothing, which describes the Quantum world at the Plank scale of our physical existence.

Yes. I doubt there are very few actual scientists which understand science differently than you. But if we include all humans you will find those who confuse methodological and metaphysical naturalism and will claim that science proves metaphysical naturalism or that science can answer moral questions.

Now for the last part - Maybe back to the philosophical/theological absolute nothing, which is a subjective belief versus the Quantum nothing, which describes the Quantum world at the Plank scale of our physical existence. Yeah, there is a difference. Science do have a practical use and you understand. That is good.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm pretty much ignorant to all this. Question. Has science proved (or found reason to say X is true) that there is such "thing" as a void. A space lacking any thing in it? From energy to whatever?

A lack of?

 

[ChristineM]

Yes. I doubt there are very few actual scientists which understand science differently than you. But if we include all humans you will find those who confuse methodological and metaphysical naturalism and will claim that science proves metaphysical naturalism or that science can answer moral questions.

Now for the last part - Maybe back to the philosophical/theological absolute nothing, which is a subjective belief versus the Quantum nothing, which describes the Quantum world at the Plank scale of our physical existence. Yeah, there is a difference. Science do have a practical use and you understand. That is good.

All totally irrelevant straw men

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes. I doubt there are very few actual scientists which understand science differently than you. But if we include all humans you will find those who confuse methodological and metaphysical naturalism and will claim that science proves metaphysical naturalism or that science can answer moral questions.

Now for the last part - Maybe back to the philosophical/theological absolute nothing, which is a subjective belief versus the Quantum nothing, which describes the Quantum world at the Plank scale of our physical existence. Yeah, there is a difference. Science do have a practical use and you understand. That is good.

I will give this some thought, . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

All totally irrelevant straw men

. . . and straw women.

 

[ChristineM]

. . . and straw women.

It was irrelevant to what we were discussing

 

[shunyadragon]

It was irrelevant to what we were discussing

Where is your sense of humor? In the cellar.

 

[osgart]

I think this article clears up the confusion people make of nothing.

Levels of Nothing by Robert Lawrence Kuhn | Closer to Truth

 

[SESMeT]

On the other hand, nothingness can become anything.

I don't think nothingness can become anything, either. I think only things can change form to become other things.

I don't think that X can become Y unless X first exists. And I think being is existing. So I don't think that nothing can become anything because I don't think that nothing can be anything and I think that being is a precondition for becoming.

 

[ChristineM]

Where is your sense of humor? In the cellar.

Now don't be nasty, it could spoil a grand relationship?