Your conception of nothing still implicitly includes something you didn't discuss, namely *time*.
Rather than focusing on the *nihilo* in *ex nihilo*, here I'd like to focus on the *ex*. Normally when we say B was created *from* A, we mean that at some point in time A existed and was then changed into B at some future point in time. If, however, we postulate that nothingness means no time, then the *ex* in *ex nihilo* must in a sense be metaphorical.
In fact the basic General Relativistic account of the universe does in fact look like this. The universe is a 4-dimensional spacetime manifold with a singularity corresponding the the big bang, asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. The universe itself is (eternally) formally caused by God, who remember is outside the universe, hence outside time, in the realm of forms. Asking about the first cause of the universe makes no sense since the notional of first cause only makes sense within time, hence within the universe.
I'm not sure who to reconcile this "General Relativist" account with you "Quantum mechanical" account, but then we don't know who to fully reconcile General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.
Hmm, no, I think we're actually in agreement. Unbounded telesis precedes time; time is created by the One or God. As such God is outside time.
I allude to this here: "It took place instantly, in our perspective, due to the absence of perceived time before the Big Bang" and "Thus we reach the Classical Theistic position of the One — God — as a self-created and necessary being. And note that God was not created by the Indefinite Dyad, nor did he “come into existence” in time. Rather, God was “always the case” because before Actuality came into existence, there was no such thing as time."
>> In fact the basic General Relativistic account of the universe does in fact look like this. The universe is a 4-dimensional spacetime manifold with a singularity corresponding the the big bang, asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. <<
McTaggart spoke about this at length in 1908 with his essay "The Unreality of Time" (basically the foundational work in "Philosophy of Time" every Metaphysics student studies these days).
"Time" (McTaggart argued) is spoken of by the layman either circularly, contradictorily or insufficiently. Therefore, it is UNREAL. (this was basically the point of his essay)
He foresaw the 20th century Physicists and their formulation of Time as a "Block" whereby time (like length, width, height) 'already exists out there' akin to how 'space' (as conceptualized in 3 dimensions) is "all out there". This, he called the "B-Series"
He also foresaw the theologians, philosophers, etc who focused more on the "passing, arrowlike nature of time" whereby the present-moment (as a "thin slit") is genuinely real, whilst the past is gone and the future is yet to be. This, he called the "A-Series"
His essay basically sought to undermine both those accounts. The goal was to then formulate (what he dubbed) a "C-Series" of time. Relevant:
>> The constituents of the C-series are mental states (a consequence of McTaggart's argument in Ch. 34 of The Nature of Existence that reality cannot really be material), which are related to each other on the basis of their conceptual content in terms of being included in and inclusive of (1927: sect. 566 & Ch. 60). These atemporal relations are meant to provide what the earlier/later than relation cannot, notably explain why an illusion of change and temporal succession can arise in an atemporal reality. <<
... Thus he got to a "C-Series" which is set of atemporal relations which (somehow) give rise to temporal reality. He then wished to conclude in that way (i.e. "Time is UNREAL")
This essay (and his successive arguments on the Unreality of Time) were widely rejected. After all, it was the beginning of the 20th century whereby Analytic Philosophy was about to reach its zenith. Even to this day, McTaggart's stance is viewed with disdain in the Academy.
Irony of Ironies though that he has become relevant again (especially his "C-series") now that most in the West have gotten to a dead end with all the various "Scientific" disciplines.
Interesting point! But even if God is outside the universe, surely he is still inside or part of reality? From what I understand, Langan's theories also use the concept of reality or totality instead of the limited universe.
As for general relativity, that rejects absolute time in favour of an absolute speed of light, turning one problem into another. And modern experiments are showing that the speed of light is not absolute or constant at all—for example, this researcher has used a fiber optic interferometer to detect the rotation of the earth, which Michelson and Morley failed to do: http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Sagnac/SagnacEarth.html
The experimenter also points out that if time is relative, then all events must simultaneously coexist.
It's fun to bash Einsteinian relativity for all kinds of flaws, like the absurdity of time flowing at a different speed between one's head and one's toes due to minute gravitational variations, but the above experiments should suffice.
> Interesting point! But even if God is outside the universe, surely he is still inside or part of reality?
Yes, in a somewhat similar sense to the way numbers are part of reality.
> And modern experiments are showing that the speed of light is not absolute or constant at all—for example, this researcher has used a fiber optic interferometer to detect the rotation of the earth, which Michelson and Morley failed to do:
The speed of light *in a vacuum* is constant.
> The experimenter also points out that if time is relative, then all events must simultaneously coexist.
Um, no. Events happen in distinct points of spacetime.
> It's fun to bash Einsteinian relativity for all kinds of flaws, like the absurdity of time flowing at a different speed between one's head and one's toes due to minute gravitational variations
Just because something is counter-intuitive doesn't mean it's wrong.
Spacetime generated from quantum mechanical matter always has a 3+1 description, i.e. Space evolving in time in a probabilistic way. That's how they are reconciled.
This is seperate from Quantum Gravity, it's usually called semiclassical gravity.
More creation stories, from various cultures line up. More than most people would imagine. As you mentioned, they just use different languages. It sounds like a bunch of different cultures describing the same events but with different terminology, relationally.
I used to read about theoretical physics all the time, but stopped once I realized that most of the research was literally people being paid to disprove God. It was no longer interesting, because it was too agenda driven. Every time there is a contradiction, or a roadblock, people just make up new shit.
Modern physics starts to sound like COVID-19 masking logic. You absolutely have to wear a mask *it's a hard-fast rule* -- unless you're sitting down in a restaurant. You know, because, SARS-CoV-2 only infects people while standing, or something like that. Of course, if you question that logic, you're ostracized. Because you're not supposed to ask questions. That's not science.
What happened to *real* science, where people are trying to figure out how things work? I guess there's not enough money in that...
🗨 It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth [century] will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics.
↑↑ A verdict issued some score years ago ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think you're right. We *are* in a dark age of pseudoscience nonsense, designed to keep people from seeing truths. I'm sure much more [as it relates to physics] is known than what is published. And it's hidden from the public. Similarly, you can't get funding, unless you're part of the "pseudoscience nonsense gang," so it's self perpetuating.
I'm definitely going to read that link when I have time!
Plato's unwritten doctrine sounds like Vedantic thought, even down to 'shruti' which means, 'what is heard'.
The ultimate Anode, or origin of All is his 'One'. The Indefinite Dyad would equate to Vedic terms Purusha and Prakriti, generally termed pure Essence and Substance. Nothing exists without One developing 'Essence' first, pure potentiality from which form or matter (Prakriti) manifests. Guénon describes it well in Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta (but it comes up in many of his books).
Plato based his work on Pythagoras, who was taught by the Phoenicians, a form of Brahmin (I heard but haven't confirmed 'Pythagoras' was originally 'Pita Gurus'. (Father gurus.)
Unfortunately the irony is cruel- we must overcome the ego (Mary Magdalen the prostitute or maker of this physical world) to open the 'right side' of the mind (The Virgin Mary) to truly see the other worlds. This meditative principle is found in all the worlds religions.
Mer chant is the song of the sea; the Holy See claims the whole Sea, sea or Mary/Mar being the esoteric name for truth and the medium from which all is derived first by conception.
Materia Prima in an alchemic sense is the result of the biblical 'Fall.' The lack or privation is the creature operating on ego only, what Iain McGilchrist calls the the left brain.
He tries to keep the right side open using poetry, nature and artistic pursuits as one must to maintain a balanced mind.
All-left-brain, all-the-time will destroy itself. Parables in the bible refer to the necessity of meditation but it has been corrupted by left brain thought. This is long enough so no details but there are many!
'Evil' is just live backwards which is what we've been doing to build and maintain crazy clown world. Superstition needs to bow down and back away slowly now. Or meet a more vicious end, idk.
There is no vacuum. Space IS infinite potential and it is electric. Stars are 'born in a Z-pinch' involving electro-magnetism for example... The Big Bang NEVER HAPPENED.
'Nothing' or 'taking no thought' (meditation) brings EVERYthing- that is, the right brain or Spirit to balance the animal body left brain ego to create Divinity in Man.
To get above time and achieve 'eternal life', Brahma or "Christ" consciousness one must meditate without distraction, not think themselves in to a walking pretzel.
That's enough autism for now, must be time for lunch. Cheerio.
Thanks for the insights. I hardly ever comment on Hindu metaphysics because I simply don't know enough about it to be able to write intelligently. History is replete with Westerners trying to explain Hinduism or Buddhism and simply embarrassing themselves in the process...
Hellenic and Nordic Gods defeat the Giants which crated it. Giants appear as Nephilim in Christianity and may well have existed.
Because we exist, IMO, we cannot imagine nothing that doesn't have something in it.
Hindus imagine reality as teh intersection of opposite forces, hot and cold : war and peace : ect.
Brahma creates worlds, their men and their Gods and Siva will destroy them when Vishnu finds them unworthy, both God eminating from sleeping Vishnu when He awakes in the stars. There is also an egg genisis, with a vibrating center and layers, and others. Some regard theology as a branch of literature. les Borges imagined Tlon, in which science is a branch of psychology!
Maybe it is.
Physics imagines aboslute forces and their relation to each other via behaviour. Extending this into thermodynamics and chemistry we have Ideal Standard States as universal references because they don't exist. Reality required an "activity coefficient" and these things do act upon one another yileidng predicative results.
Clausewitz imagined absolute poles that could be defined becasue they don't exist between which reality does exist. Total War, for instance, is throwing everything a state has onto the battlefield with no consideration of maintaining that effort for another day even if victorious. (not a good idea)
Of course, Clausewtiz would say all this is just theory thinking. Ha!
When asked what was "waving" in Schrodinger's Equations, Born proposed it was a probabilty of finding an electron in that state : a sort of desnity mostly, IMO, because it was the best anyone had. ANd, it works! But remeber that the Hamiltonian Operator was concocted for fluid wave oscillating, not probability. Dirc's matrix algebra apporach actaully makes more intuitive sense and is kind of fun up to maybe 3 atoms : molecular orbital theory.
When experimental evidence contradicts, Bohr gave us Complementarity to get around its meaning, IMO, that we still really don't know, which is where I started.
Ha!
Yes, a high probility for one thing does imply that the other isn't impossible. Complementarity seems to say that both were possible from conception of the analysis. Freezing temperatures are not impossible this time of year because freezing temperatures are possible to begin with. If they weren't, we wouldn't worry about it.
I think there will always be a mystery in it.
Every day, we open a new box, Schrodigner's Cat awakens too, liing on the bed, until one day, he isn't.
George Boole may have anticipated Langan regarding the importance of nothingness. Check out these remarks from "Logic and Reasoning" (1855?) --
I am not sure that we can picture to ourselves absolute non-existence, the non-existence not only of the eternal world, but of ourselves, — of the ego and the non-ego together. And yet the *intellectual* ideas of existence and non-existence are seen to form the basis of all our formal thought, and to determine its processes, — for they not only are the ground of the laws of those direct operations to which our finite conceptions are subject, and which we can perform without stepping beyond the finite, but they are the sources of the logical relations which I have termed the categories of quantity and which determine a priori the possible forms of all inference.
Correct. In Principia Mathematica (basically the last time Logicians and Mathematicians ever tried to form a unified TOE for their field) the same conclusion is hinted at. Namely; "Nothing" escapes conceptual framing. Human Beings are very good at Notioning "Every" and "Some" and we have Quantifiers for those guys. But "Nothing"? We are pretty bad at capturing.
It's like trying to define "half of a hole" as I put it.
I also believe this is true, even in dreams. People can't contemplate *nothing* and that's why we wake up in dreams where we die. You never hit the ground when falling, or if you do, you don't die. If you're shot with a gun, you usually wake up. We can't imagine non-existence.
I imagine this is because we *are* physical beings. Everything we relate to is grounded in *something*. You can't travel to nothing, because no vehicle can take you there.
Or, to quote an 80s movie, "No matter where you go, there *you* are." - The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension 😉👉
Alright... Take #2. Hopefully I am using the Quantifiers properly this time! :"P
""Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory""
This is just : For Every "~A", "B" is the Case.
A = Forbidden, B = Compulsory
So if we check the negation, it would read as follows:
For SOME "A", "~B" is the Case.
Rewriting it:
For SOME "Forbiddens", "not Compulsory" is the case.
Elongated form:
There are some Forbiddens, for which it is the case that they are not Compulsory.
Turning this into Understandable, Human Language:
""Somethings that are Forbidden, are not Compulsory.""
Quick CHECK:
Well, intuitively there are restrictions and taboos in the various Nomic principles ("Laws" of Logic, Quantifiers for Formal Language, etc) we use in things like Logic, Metaphysics, Ethics, etc. These "Forbiddens" however are not adhered to (and need not be as many have shown in their works) to "still do their jobs". This demonstrates (by counterexample) the truth of the negation.
In Classical Normative Ethics for example, the starting restriction /"forbidden" is that ethical statements MUST BE propositional, and have truth valences that are definite. This however is not compulsory/"mandatory" when doing Normative ethics, since you can adopt something like Non-cognitivism when it comes to your Meta-ethical stance.
Maybe I just have more nous for this (heh), but I think Langan et al are wrong in their conception of nothingness. Absolute, true nothingness means there is *nothing* there. Not just a lack of restraints on potentiality, but a lack of potentiality as well.
Creation ex nihilo & creation ex chaos are thus still different concepts, though possibly God made chaos ex nihilo, and from there the rest of creation:
"In the beginning God created the heavens & the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
This becomes something like this...
"When time began, God created the heavens & the universe. Now the universe was without Aristotelian form & lacking in any actuality, not even light, and God was superior to & separate from the chaos."
I don't agree with that. Omnipotence is the ability to do all things that are possible to do. If there was no potential for being, God could not have actualized being, because God cannot do what is logically impossible.
And the translation you have quoted, while traditional, is no longer considered to be the best or most correct translation. The preferred translation is.
Young's Literal Translation:
" In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth, the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters."
or
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition:
"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters."
When written in the traditional language, the verse makes it sound like the act of creation was ex nihilo, but when correctly translated, it is more compatible with my point of view than yours.
If you disagree with the translations I've presented, take it up with the Bible translation community, cuz even the Catholic editions translate it this way now :-|
"I don't agree with that. Omnipotence is the ability to do all things that are possible to do. If there was no potential for being, God could not have actualized being, because God cannot do what is logically impossible."
A couple of questions. First, can a God that is (among other things) pure actuality create potential? I think so - John 1:1-3 (below) suggests as much: *nothing* happened but through the Word. There's also God's description of Himself in Exodus 3 as "I AM", which is a pretty definitive statement about whether or not He exists and is real - and just how real He is.
Second, can you have ontological anything without the Logos? Ie potential must by definition be bound, shaped, defined, and all that. There is no potential for being without conditions that permit being, just there is no potential for an apple to fall if there is no gravity, or distance over which to fall, and so on.
=====
"When written in the traditional language, the verse makes it sound like the act of creation was ex nihilo, but when correctly translated, it is more compatible with my point of view than yours."
The Catholic version I see no great difference in. Young's one is more interesting in that you can read it as the heavens & the earth both existing before God's "preparing" them, but on the other hand:
Gen 2:4: "These [are] births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God’s making earth and heavens;"
John 1:1-3: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; this one was in the beginning with God; all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened."
So to me all that says that whilst the heavens & the earth may have existed before God started preparing them, He also is responsible for creating them.
=====
On the subject of the CTMU, whilst I've not read Langan's work, that wiki does have some interesting stuff on it. On the page for God:
"The universe can be described as a cybernetic system in which freedom and constraint are counterbalanced. The constraints function as structure; thus, the laws of physics are constraints which define the structure of spacetime, whereas freedom is that which is bound or logically quantified by the constraints in question. Now, since there is no real time scale external to reality, there is no extrinsic point in time at which the moment of creation can be located, and this invalidates phrases like "before reality existed" and "when reality created itself". So rather than asking "when" the universe came to be, or what existed "before" the universe was born, we must instead ask "what would remain if the structural constraints defining the real universe were regressively suspended?" First, time would gradually disappear, eliminating the "when" question entirely. And once time disappears completely, what remains is the answer to the "what" question: a realm of boundless potential characterized by a total lack of real constraint. In other words, the real universe timelessly emerges from a background of logically unquantified potential to which the concepts of space and time simply do not apply. Now let's attend to your "how" question. Within a realm of unbound potential like the one from which the universe emerges, everything is possible, and this implies that "everything exists" in the sense of possibility. Some possibilities are self-inconsistent and therefore ontological dead ends; they extinguish themselves in the very attempt to emerge into actuality. But other possibilities are self-consistent and potentially self-configuring by internally defined evolutionary processes. That is, they predicate their own emergence according to their own internal logics, providing their own means and answering their own "hows". These possibilities, which are completely self-contained not only with respect to how, what, and when, but why, have a common structure called SCSPL (Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language). An SCSPL answers its own "why?" question with something called teleology; where SCSPL is "God" to whatever exists within it, teleology amounts to the "Will of God"."
So if I'm reading this right, he started with the created universe as is, and then stripped away the laws of physics, including time, to get to his realm of pure potential. But even there he still seems to have logic underpinning everything. "Some possibilities are self-inconsistent" sure, but self-inconsistency requires logic.
So yes, you can strip away all of this stuff, but eventually you come to the point that you still need the Logos for any of this to be meaningful.
>> Absolute, true nothingness means there is *nothing* there. Not just a lack of restraints on potentiality, but a lack of potentiality as well. <<
The issue (and Western Philosophers have had this issue from the get-go) is that "Nothing" cannot be schematized in a formal system. If I took (say) something basic like "Every X" and checked the negation, it would become "Some ~X". Therein lies the problem:
You have quantifiers which take the form of "Every", "Some" or some other variant of the two (sometimes in isolation, sometimes in combo). But "Nothing"? Sadly, it's not neatly spoken of. EVEN Russell & Whitehead back in the day tried and failed utterly to formalize it.
Lacan famously said that the "Real" is BEYOND reasoning and expression and is thus an "impossible" category. Why? Because the "Real" stands in opposition to conception (i.e. Logic and related formal fields) and expression (dreams, sub-conscious meanderings, etc). Ergo, it is meaningless and has No Truth for itself.
Ergo, the "Real" is bereft of Truth, the Good and the Beautiful (as later Continental Lacanians expanded upon said Pessimism). This (to my knowledge) is the Closest and most Authentic the Western Philosophers have come to speaking about "NOTHING".
Not merely lack of restraints, potence, etc. But also lack of form, concept, etc and thereby bereft of Truth. And Lacan (in his Pessimism) said it is the "REAL" that ticks those boxes.
> But…. the contemporary materialist would then immediately be forced to explain why the universe created by the Big Bang came out so fine-tuned for life.
I don't see why this would need to be explained. It's just the way it is. *However*, what needs to be explained is how was it 'decided' which of the many universes would come into being. Consider: it didn't have to be this one, we could just as easily have lived in a Minecraft-world. Why this Universe, with these laws, when there are infinite possiblities? And just so we're clear: "collapse of the wave function" is itself the product of the collapse of the wave function. :) The decision to decide randomly has to be decided upon before it is acted upon. ;)
> the distinction between “creation ex nihilo” and “creation from chaos” dissolves
While I can't vouch, this is *probably* true. After all, the defining feature of "nihil" is that there's nothing to it - no order, no structure, no nothing. And clearly things can be created "out" of it. So, since definitions and properties align, nihil and chaos are probably the same thing.
Unbound telesis or chaos or pure potentiality is not nothing though, it is if nothing else the potential for a thing and hence not an absolute negation of things as would be required for creation ex nihilo to be a valid descriptor.
Incidentally, what do you think of the idea that all minds are in reality a simple temporary process of disassociation in one great overreaching mind? My awareness that I am is the same as your awareness that you are and all that. It's an idea that has come up in a number of esoteric traditions independently and the idea seems to have a lot of merit to it imo.
It definitely has come up frequently in esoteric tradition, and I have made use of it in my own fiction writing as an explanation for the source of consciousness. I personally hope it is not metaphysically true that our end is to dissolve back into the universal consciousness, though.
If it is true, I suspect it would be rather like waking up from a dream. Less of a death of individuality and more of a noticing. My dream self isn't dead for having resumed its place in my greater mind.
"" Everything not forbidden is compulsory "" -> Gell-Man's Totalitarian Principle.
The implication is as follows:
"" IF something is Compulsory THEN it is not forbidden ""
The negation would be:
"" Something is Compulsory AND it is forbidden ""
So... basically "can we find something out there which is Forbidden AND Compulsory?". The answer to this is... YES.
Namely, those Consistent Formal Systems in which "arithmetic can be carried out".
Any such system By Necessity (i.e. "Compulsion") cannot prove whether *some* sentences are True or False. These sentences are (valence-wise) "Forbidden" for evaluation.
Gödel was a Platonist. He did not believe that his theorem disproved God, far from it; he thought the opposite. I don't think I understand the point you are trying to make.
He certainly was far more optimistic regarding the implications of his theorems.
The point I was making was that if you rewrite Gell-Man's Principle in the manner above (preserving the meaning of course), turn it into an "If Then" statement and then take the negation (i.e. T ^ ~F), we can demonstrate examples of the negation holding true.
As with how "If Then" statements work, any single counterexample (in the T ^ ~F form) is enough to put it in the Bin. So the principle doesn't work.
EDIT: Given the error I made above (i.e. forgetting to put in the "SOME" quantifier), I need to revise this a bit. I do still have a hunch/instinct "it doesn't work", but I need to reformulate the negation :-P
Your conception of nothing still implicitly includes something you didn't discuss, namely *time*.
Rather than focusing on the *nihilo* in *ex nihilo*, here I'd like to focus on the *ex*. Normally when we say B was created *from* A, we mean that at some point in time A existed and was then changed into B at some future point in time. If, however, we postulate that nothingness means no time, then the *ex* in *ex nihilo* must in a sense be metaphorical.
In fact the basic General Relativistic account of the universe does in fact look like this. The universe is a 4-dimensional spacetime manifold with a singularity corresponding the the big bang, asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. The universe itself is (eternally) formally caused by God, who remember is outside the universe, hence outside time, in the realm of forms. Asking about the first cause of the universe makes no sense since the notional of first cause only makes sense within time, hence within the universe.
I'm not sure who to reconcile this "General Relativist" account with you "Quantum mechanical" account, but then we don't know who to fully reconcile General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.
Hmm, no, I think we're actually in agreement. Unbounded telesis precedes time; time is created by the One or God. As such God is outside time.
I allude to this here: "It took place instantly, in our perspective, due to the absence of perceived time before the Big Bang" and "Thus we reach the Classical Theistic position of the One — God — as a self-created and necessary being. And note that God was not created by the Indefinite Dyad, nor did he “come into existence” in time. Rather, God was “always the case” because before Actuality came into existence, there was no such thing as time."
>> In fact the basic General Relativistic account of the universe does in fact look like this. The universe is a 4-dimensional spacetime manifold with a singularity corresponding the the big bang, asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. <<
McTaggart spoke about this at length in 1908 with his essay "The Unreality of Time" (basically the foundational work in "Philosophy of Time" every Metaphysics student studies these days).
Relevant: https://archive.org/details/mindpsycho17edinuoft/page/456/mode/2up
"Time" (McTaggart argued) is spoken of by the layman either circularly, contradictorily or insufficiently. Therefore, it is UNREAL. (this was basically the point of his essay)
He foresaw the 20th century Physicists and their formulation of Time as a "Block" whereby time (like length, width, height) 'already exists out there' akin to how 'space' (as conceptualized in 3 dimensions) is "all out there". This, he called the "B-Series"
He also foresaw the theologians, philosophers, etc who focused more on the "passing, arrowlike nature of time" whereby the present-moment (as a "thin slit") is genuinely real, whilst the past is gone and the future is yet to be. This, he called the "A-Series"
His essay basically sought to undermine both those accounts. The goal was to then formulate (what he dubbed) a "C-Series" of time. Relevant:
>> The constituents of the C-series are mental states (a consequence of McTaggart's argument in Ch. 34 of The Nature of Existence that reality cannot really be material), which are related to each other on the basis of their conceptual content in terms of being included in and inclusive of (1927: sect. 566 & Ch. 60). These atemporal relations are meant to provide what the earlier/later than relation cannot, notably explain why an illusion of change and temporal succession can arise in an atemporal reality. <<
... Thus he got to a "C-Series" which is set of atemporal relations which (somehow) give rise to temporal reality. He then wished to conclude in that way (i.e. "Time is UNREAL")
This essay (and his successive arguments on the Unreality of Time) were widely rejected. After all, it was the beginning of the 20th century whereby Analytic Philosophy was about to reach its zenith. Even to this day, McTaggart's stance is viewed with disdain in the Academy.
Irony of Ironies though that he has become relevant again (especially his "C-series") now that most in the West have gotten to a dead end with all the various "Scientific" disciplines.
Interesting point! But even if God is outside the universe, surely he is still inside or part of reality? From what I understand, Langan's theories also use the concept of reality or totality instead of the limited universe.
As for general relativity, that rejects absolute time in favour of an absolute speed of light, turning one problem into another. And modern experiments are showing that the speed of light is not absolute or constant at all—for example, this researcher has used a fiber optic interferometer to detect the rotation of the earth, which Michelson and Morley failed to do: http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Sagnac/SagnacEarth.html
The experimenter also points out that if time is relative, then all events must simultaneously coexist.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Time.html
It's fun to bash Einsteinian relativity for all kinds of flaws, like the absurdity of time flowing at a different speed between one's head and one's toes due to minute gravitational variations, but the above experiments should suffice.
> Interesting point! But even if God is outside the universe, surely he is still inside or part of reality?
Yes, in a somewhat similar sense to the way numbers are part of reality.
> And modern experiments are showing that the speed of light is not absolute or constant at all—for example, this researcher has used a fiber optic interferometer to detect the rotation of the earth, which Michelson and Morley failed to do:
The speed of light *in a vacuum* is constant.
> The experimenter also points out that if time is relative, then all events must simultaneously coexist.
Um, no. Events happen in distinct points of spacetime.
> It's fun to bash Einsteinian relativity for all kinds of flaws, like the absurdity of time flowing at a different speed between one's head and one's toes due to minute gravitational variations
Just because something is counter-intuitive doesn't mean it's wrong.
Spacetime generated from quantum mechanical matter always has a 3+1 description, i.e. Space evolving in time in a probabilistic way. That's how they are reconciled.
This is seperate from Quantum Gravity, it's usually called semiclassical gravity.
This is a great read!
More creation stories, from various cultures line up. More than most people would imagine. As you mentioned, they just use different languages. It sounds like a bunch of different cultures describing the same events but with different terminology, relationally.
I used to read about theoretical physics all the time, but stopped once I realized that most of the research was literally people being paid to disprove God. It was no longer interesting, because it was too agenda driven. Every time there is a contradiction, or a roadblock, people just make up new shit.
Modern physics starts to sound like COVID-19 masking logic. You absolutely have to wear a mask *it's a hard-fast rule* -- unless you're sitting down in a restaurant. You know, because, SARS-CoV-2 only infects people while standing, or something like that. Of course, if you question that logic, you're ostracized. Because you're not supposed to ask questions. That's not science.
What happened to *real* science, where people are trying to figure out how things work? I guess there's not enough money in that...
🗨 It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth [century] will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics.
↑↑ A verdict issued some score years ago ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%20Interview.html
I agree with both of you.
I think you're right. We *are* in a dark age of pseudoscience nonsense, designed to keep people from seeing truths. I'm sure much more [as it relates to physics] is known than what is published. And it's hidden from the public. Similarly, you can't get funding, unless you're part of the "pseudoscience nonsense gang," so it's self perpetuating.
I'm definitely going to read that link when I have time!
Plato's unwritten doctrine sounds like Vedantic thought, even down to 'shruti' which means, 'what is heard'.
The ultimate Anode, or origin of All is his 'One'. The Indefinite Dyad would equate to Vedic terms Purusha and Prakriti, generally termed pure Essence and Substance. Nothing exists without One developing 'Essence' first, pure potentiality from which form or matter (Prakriti) manifests. Guénon describes it well in Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta (but it comes up in many of his books).
Plato based his work on Pythagoras, who was taught by the Phoenicians, a form of Brahmin (I heard but haven't confirmed 'Pythagoras' was originally 'Pita Gurus'. (Father gurus.)
Unfortunately the irony is cruel- we must overcome the ego (Mary Magdalen the prostitute or maker of this physical world) to open the 'right side' of the mind (The Virgin Mary) to truly see the other worlds. This meditative principle is found in all the worlds religions.
Mer chant is the song of the sea; the Holy See claims the whole Sea, sea or Mary/Mar being the esoteric name for truth and the medium from which all is derived first by conception.
Materia Prima in an alchemic sense is the result of the biblical 'Fall.' The lack or privation is the creature operating on ego only, what Iain McGilchrist calls the the left brain.
He tries to keep the right side open using poetry, nature and artistic pursuits as one must to maintain a balanced mind.
All-left-brain, all-the-time will destroy itself. Parables in the bible refer to the necessity of meditation but it has been corrupted by left brain thought. This is long enough so no details but there are many!
'Evil' is just live backwards which is what we've been doing to build and maintain crazy clown world. Superstition needs to bow down and back away slowly now. Or meet a more vicious end, idk.
There is no vacuum. Space IS infinite potential and it is electric. Stars are 'born in a Z-pinch' involving electro-magnetism for example... The Big Bang NEVER HAPPENED.
'Nothing' or 'taking no thought' (meditation) brings EVERYthing- that is, the right brain or Spirit to balance the animal body left brain ego to create Divinity in Man.
To get above time and achieve 'eternal life', Brahma or "Christ" consciousness one must meditate without distraction, not think themselves in to a walking pretzel.
That's enough autism for now, must be time for lunch. Cheerio.
Thanks for the insights. I hardly ever comment on Hindu metaphysics because I simply don't know enough about it to be able to write intelligently. History is replete with Westerners trying to explain Hinduism or Buddhism and simply embarrassing themselves in the process...
Hellenic and Nordic Gods defeat the Giants which crated it. Giants appear as Nephilim in Christianity and may well have existed.
Because we exist, IMO, we cannot imagine nothing that doesn't have something in it.
Hindus imagine reality as teh intersection of opposite forces, hot and cold : war and peace : ect.
Brahma creates worlds, their men and their Gods and Siva will destroy them when Vishnu finds them unworthy, both God eminating from sleeping Vishnu when He awakes in the stars. There is also an egg genisis, with a vibrating center and layers, and others. Some regard theology as a branch of literature. les Borges imagined Tlon, in which science is a branch of psychology!
Maybe it is.
Physics imagines aboslute forces and their relation to each other via behaviour. Extending this into thermodynamics and chemistry we have Ideal Standard States as universal references because they don't exist. Reality required an "activity coefficient" and these things do act upon one another yileidng predicative results.
Clausewitz imagined absolute poles that could be defined becasue they don't exist between which reality does exist. Total War, for instance, is throwing everything a state has onto the battlefield with no consideration of maintaining that effort for another day even if victorious. (not a good idea)
Of course, Clausewtiz would say all this is just theory thinking. Ha!
When asked what was "waving" in Schrodinger's Equations, Born proposed it was a probabilty of finding an electron in that state : a sort of desnity mostly, IMO, because it was the best anyone had. ANd, it works! But remeber that the Hamiltonian Operator was concocted for fluid wave oscillating, not probability. Dirc's matrix algebra apporach actaully makes more intuitive sense and is kind of fun up to maybe 3 atoms : molecular orbital theory.
When experimental evidence contradicts, Bohr gave us Complementarity to get around its meaning, IMO, that we still really don't know, which is where I started.
Ha!
Yes, a high probility for one thing does imply that the other isn't impossible. Complementarity seems to say that both were possible from conception of the analysis. Freezing temperatures are not impossible this time of year because freezing temperatures are possible to begin with. If they weren't, we wouldn't worry about it.
I think there will always be a mystery in it.
Every day, we open a new box, Schrodigner's Cat awakens too, liing on the bed, until one day, he isn't.
Then, what happens to the box?
Ha!
George Boole may have anticipated Langan regarding the importance of nothingness. Check out these remarks from "Logic and Reasoning" (1855?) --
I am not sure that we can picture to ourselves absolute non-existence, the non-existence not only of the eternal world, but of ourselves, — of the ego and the non-ego together. And yet the *intellectual* ideas of existence and non-existence are seen to form the basis of all our formal thought, and to determine its processes, — for they not only are the ground of the laws of those direct operations to which our finite conceptions are subject, and which we can perform without stepping beyond the finite, but they are the sources of the logical relations which I have termed the categories of quantity and which determine a priori the possible forms of all inference.
Correct. In Principia Mathematica (basically the last time Logicians and Mathematicians ever tried to form a unified TOE for their field) the same conclusion is hinted at. Namely; "Nothing" escapes conceptual framing. Human Beings are very good at Notioning "Every" and "Some" and we have Quantifiers for those guys. But "Nothing"? We are pretty bad at capturing.
It's like trying to define "half of a hole" as I put it.
I also believe this is true, even in dreams. People can't contemplate *nothing* and that's why we wake up in dreams where we die. You never hit the ground when falling, or if you do, you don't die. If you're shot with a gun, you usually wake up. We can't imagine non-existence.
I imagine this is because we *are* physical beings. Everything we relate to is grounded in *something*. You can't travel to nothing, because no vehicle can take you there.
Or, to quote an 80s movie, "No matter where you go, there *you* are." - The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension 😉👉
I believe, the observer breaks the nothingness...
I didn't know that! This only increases the high regard with which we must hold Boole.
Am I the only one who immediately notes that another name for Prima Acta and Prima Potentia are Logos (Law) and Chaos?
No, you are not! That is how this framework ties into ancient metaphysics (pre-Platonic, Egyptian, Sumerian, etc.) - Law/Cosmos vs Chaos/Void!!
Alright... Take #2. Hopefully I am using the Quantifiers properly this time! :"P
""Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory""
This is just : For Every "~A", "B" is the Case.
A = Forbidden, B = Compulsory
So if we check the negation, it would read as follows:
For SOME "A", "~B" is the Case.
Rewriting it:
For SOME "Forbiddens", "not Compulsory" is the case.
Elongated form:
There are some Forbiddens, for which it is the case that they are not Compulsory.
Turning this into Understandable, Human Language:
""Somethings that are Forbidden, are not Compulsory.""
Quick CHECK:
Well, intuitively there are restrictions and taboos in the various Nomic principles ("Laws" of Logic, Quantifiers for Formal Language, etc) we use in things like Logic, Metaphysics, Ethics, etc. These "Forbiddens" however are not adhered to (and need not be as many have shown in their works) to "still do their jobs". This demonstrates (by counterexample) the truth of the negation.
In Classical Normative Ethics for example, the starting restriction /"forbidden" is that ethical statements MUST BE propositional, and have truth valences that are definite. This however is not compulsory/"mandatory" when doing Normative ethics, since you can adopt something like Non-cognitivism when it comes to your Meta-ethical stance.
Maybe I just have more nous for this (heh), but I think Langan et al are wrong in their conception of nothingness. Absolute, true nothingness means there is *nothing* there. Not just a lack of restraints on potentiality, but a lack of potentiality as well.
Creation ex nihilo & creation ex chaos are thus still different concepts, though possibly God made chaos ex nihilo, and from there the rest of creation:
"In the beginning God created the heavens & the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
This becomes something like this...
"When time began, God created the heavens & the universe. Now the universe was without Aristotelian form & lacking in any actuality, not even light, and God was superior to & separate from the chaos."
I don't agree with that. Omnipotence is the ability to do all things that are possible to do. If there was no potential for being, God could not have actualized being, because God cannot do what is logically impossible.
And the translation you have quoted, while traditional, is no longer considered to be the best or most correct translation. The preferred translation is.
Young's Literal Translation:
" In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth, the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters."
or
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition:
"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters."
When written in the traditional language, the verse makes it sound like the act of creation was ex nihilo, but when correctly translated, it is more compatible with my point of view than yours.
If you disagree with the translations I've presented, take it up with the Bible translation community, cuz even the Catholic editions translate it this way now :-|
"I don't agree with that. Omnipotence is the ability to do all things that are possible to do. If there was no potential for being, God could not have actualized being, because God cannot do what is logically impossible."
A couple of questions. First, can a God that is (among other things) pure actuality create potential? I think so - John 1:1-3 (below) suggests as much: *nothing* happened but through the Word. There's also God's description of Himself in Exodus 3 as "I AM", which is a pretty definitive statement about whether or not He exists and is real - and just how real He is.
Second, can you have ontological anything without the Logos? Ie potential must by definition be bound, shaped, defined, and all that. There is no potential for being without conditions that permit being, just there is no potential for an apple to fall if there is no gravity, or distance over which to fall, and so on.
=====
"When written in the traditional language, the verse makes it sound like the act of creation was ex nihilo, but when correctly translated, it is more compatible with my point of view than yours."
The Catholic version I see no great difference in. Young's one is more interesting in that you can read it as the heavens & the earth both existing before God's "preparing" them, but on the other hand:
Gen 2:4: "These [are] births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God’s making earth and heavens;"
John 1:1-3: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; this one was in the beginning with God; all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened."
So to me all that says that whilst the heavens & the earth may have existed before God started preparing them, He also is responsible for creating them.
=====
On the subject of the CTMU, whilst I've not read Langan's work, that wiki does have some interesting stuff on it. On the page for God:
"The universe can be described as a cybernetic system in which freedom and constraint are counterbalanced. The constraints function as structure; thus, the laws of physics are constraints which define the structure of spacetime, whereas freedom is that which is bound or logically quantified by the constraints in question. Now, since there is no real time scale external to reality, there is no extrinsic point in time at which the moment of creation can be located, and this invalidates phrases like "before reality existed" and "when reality created itself". So rather than asking "when" the universe came to be, or what existed "before" the universe was born, we must instead ask "what would remain if the structural constraints defining the real universe were regressively suspended?" First, time would gradually disappear, eliminating the "when" question entirely. And once time disappears completely, what remains is the answer to the "what" question: a realm of boundless potential characterized by a total lack of real constraint. In other words, the real universe timelessly emerges from a background of logically unquantified potential to which the concepts of space and time simply do not apply. Now let's attend to your "how" question. Within a realm of unbound potential like the one from which the universe emerges, everything is possible, and this implies that "everything exists" in the sense of possibility. Some possibilities are self-inconsistent and therefore ontological dead ends; they extinguish themselves in the very attempt to emerge into actuality. But other possibilities are self-consistent and potentially self-configuring by internally defined evolutionary processes. That is, they predicate their own emergence according to their own internal logics, providing their own means and answering their own "hows". These possibilities, which are completely self-contained not only with respect to how, what, and when, but why, have a common structure called SCSPL (Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language). An SCSPL answers its own "why?" question with something called teleology; where SCSPL is "God" to whatever exists within it, teleology amounts to the "Will of God"."
So if I'm reading this right, he started with the created universe as is, and then stripped away the laws of physics, including time, to get to his realm of pure potential. But even there he still seems to have logic underpinning everything. "Some possibilities are self-inconsistent" sure, but self-inconsistency requires logic.
So yes, you can strip away all of this stuff, but eventually you come to the point that you still need the Logos for any of this to be meaningful.
>> Absolute, true nothingness means there is *nothing* there. Not just a lack of restraints on potentiality, but a lack of potentiality as well. <<
The issue (and Western Philosophers have had this issue from the get-go) is that "Nothing" cannot be schematized in a formal system. If I took (say) something basic like "Every X" and checked the negation, it would become "Some ~X". Therein lies the problem:
You have quantifiers which take the form of "Every", "Some" or some other variant of the two (sometimes in isolation, sometimes in combo). But "Nothing"? Sadly, it's not neatly spoken of. EVEN Russell & Whitehead back in the day tried and failed utterly to formalize it.
Lacan famously said that the "Real" is BEYOND reasoning and expression and is thus an "impossible" category. Why? Because the "Real" stands in opposition to conception (i.e. Logic and related formal fields) and expression (dreams, sub-conscious meanderings, etc). Ergo, it is meaningless and has No Truth for itself.
Ergo, the "Real" is bereft of Truth, the Good and the Beautiful (as later Continental Lacanians expanded upon said Pessimism). This (to my knowledge) is the Closest and most Authentic the Western Philosophers have come to speaking about "NOTHING".
Not merely lack of restraints, potence, etc. But also lack of form, concept, etc and thereby bereft of Truth. And Lacan (in his Pessimism) said it is the "REAL" that ticks those boxes.
> But…. the contemporary materialist would then immediately be forced to explain why the universe created by the Big Bang came out so fine-tuned for life.
I don't see why this would need to be explained. It's just the way it is. *However*, what needs to be explained is how was it 'decided' which of the many universes would come into being. Consider: it didn't have to be this one, we could just as easily have lived in a Minecraft-world. Why this Universe, with these laws, when there are infinite possiblities? And just so we're clear: "collapse of the wave function" is itself the product of the collapse of the wave function. :) The decision to decide randomly has to be decided upon before it is acted upon. ;)
> the distinction between “creation ex nihilo” and “creation from chaos” dissolves
While I can't vouch, this is *probably* true. After all, the defining feature of "nihil" is that there's nothing to it - no order, no structure, no nothing. And clearly things can be created "out" of it. So, since definitions and properties align, nihil and chaos are probably the same thing.
Is not “potentiality” a “thing”?
If it is, then you don’t have “nothing”
Unbound telesis or chaos or pure potentiality is not nothing though, it is if nothing else the potential for a thing and hence not an absolute negation of things as would be required for creation ex nihilo to be a valid descriptor.
Incidentally, what do you think of the idea that all minds are in reality a simple temporary process of disassociation in one great overreaching mind? My awareness that I am is the same as your awareness that you are and all that. It's an idea that has come up in a number of esoteric traditions independently and the idea seems to have a lot of merit to it imo.
It definitely has come up frequently in esoteric tradition, and I have made use of it in my own fiction writing as an explanation for the source of consciousness. I personally hope it is not metaphysically true that our end is to dissolve back into the universal consciousness, though.
If it is true, I suspect it would be rather like waking up from a dream. Less of a death of individuality and more of a noticing. My dream self isn't dead for having resumed its place in my greater mind.
"" Everything not forbidden is compulsory "" -> Gell-Man's Totalitarian Principle.
The implication is as follows:
"" IF something is Compulsory THEN it is not forbidden ""
The negation would be:
"" Something is Compulsory AND it is forbidden ""
So... basically "can we find something out there which is Forbidden AND Compulsory?". The answer to this is... YES.
Namely, those Consistent Formal Systems in which "arithmetic can be carried out".
Any such system By Necessity (i.e. "Compulsion") cannot prove whether *some* sentences are True or False. These sentences are (valence-wise) "Forbidden" for evaluation.
Good effort my friend, but Mr Gödel says "Nope".
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
More importantly, even, given
"Everything not forbidden is compulsory "
I do not see how you can deduce:
"IF something is Compulsory THEN it is not forbidden."
Propositionally it is entirely possible that everything is compulsory, including forbidden things.
When I write it in slightly more formal terms:
----Every Not A is B.
Then from that proposition, it seems a deductive fallacy to assert
--- Any B is Not A.
For instance, if I assert:
Every Human that is Not a Man is a Gendered Human.
It does not follow
Any Gendered Human is Not a Man.
So the way it would go is as follows:
Every ~A is a B.
Let's say I "pick up" a B. What can be said about it?
Given the first statement, here's what we can do:
IF I "pick up" a B THEN that is a ~A
Simplified:
IF B then ~A.
... That's the way I envisioned it.
EDIT: I think I see the error I made (as you note correctly as well)
If I "pick up" a B then SOME of those (i.e. "Bs") are As.
Ok, welp. That was an Epic Fail :-P
Gotta brush up on my "Quantifiers" again!
Gödel was a Platonist. He did not believe that his theorem disproved God, far from it; he thought the opposite. I don't think I understand the point you are trying to make.
He certainly was far more optimistic regarding the implications of his theorems.
The point I was making was that if you rewrite Gell-Man's Principle in the manner above (preserving the meaning of course), turn it into an "If Then" statement and then take the negation (i.e. T ^ ~F), we can demonstrate examples of the negation holding true.
As with how "If Then" statements work, any single counterexample (in the T ^ ~F form) is enough to put it in the Bin. So the principle doesn't work.
EDIT: Given the error I made above (i.e. forgetting to put in the "SOME" quantifier), I need to revise this a bit. I do still have a hunch/instinct "it doesn't work", but I need to reformulate the negation :-P
Don't forget, I'm channeling djinn! You won't stop me!
Let's hope not! I don't want a good Human like yourself becoming their lackey.