As a tangent, the difference between Newtonian, quantum, and relativistic science is what basic or “undefinable” terms you start with. This is why I think that we can say that QM is tautological, even when later on we come up with a deeper physics underlying it.Everything in any physics text book is dependant on definitions. Otherwise you couldn’t quantify anything before you can apply mathmatical criteria to it. All of those definitions are contingent upon other definitions that eventually boil down to three basic undefignable terms. Those terms are: Space, Time and Matter. You cannot give me a valid definition of those terms in spite of the obvious observation that we could use any of those terms any time in any sentance and anyone would know exactly what was being said…! It’s kind of like a fact that any artist knows… there are three basic colors, red, blue and yellow and you cannot create by mixing other colors.
Another kind of trinity…
So… taking that into consideration, let’s observe what the first line in the Bible says:
In the Beginning, ( time ) God created the heavens ( space ) and the universe. ( matter )
With appologies to my athiestic friends who might mean well… I’d say that trumps it. I mean… how can you argue with that…??? I just don’t know.
I hope Dr. Stephen Barr reads this and posts a comment.
If they are so certain, why do all philosophers disagree with each other?Please, lets not confuse scientific theories with metaphysical certainties. They employ different modes of investigation.
That was intended to be a quote from our Hermetic friend; the quotes didn’t work, or I deleted something accidentaly.You are confusing emptiness with nothingness. The mind is something not nothing. Do not presume that the absence of physical reality equals nothing.
Show of hands is only relevant in science. I don’t need everyone to agree with me when I say that a thing cannot both not exist and exist at the same time in the same manner.If they are so certain, why do all philosophers disagree with each other?
Science has brought unanimity, philosophy hasn’t.
You are also incredibly arrogant if you think that you are infallibly certain in your Aristotelian framework of matter and forms and esses and accidents and natures and prime matters and categories even when hundreds and thousands of professional philosophers who are just as reasonable and intelligent as you are disagree with you.Show of hands is only relevant in science. I don’t need everyone to agree with me when I say that a thing cannot both not exist and exist at the same time in the same manner.
So you would agree that something is not identical with nothing?.That was intended to be a quote from our Hermetic friend; the quotes didn’t work, or I deleted something accidentaly.
Provided the terms are clear, of course.So you would agree that something is not identical with nothing?.
Its either incredible arrogance, or incredible intelligence and honesty. Like I said show of hands is meaningless in this context.You are also incredibly arrogant if you think that you are infallibly certain in your Aristotelian framework of matter and forms and esses and accidents and natures and prime matters and categories even when hundreds and thousands of professional philosophers who are just as reasonable and intelligent as you are disagree with you.
Something; is that which has being. Nothing, is that which has no being. Its quite simple. The two are not identical in actual reality.Provided the terms are clear, of course.
It depends on what you consider “nothing” and what you consider “something”. Language is pretty useless if we don’t get that straightened out. I don’t care which mental box you choose to put the vacuum in.
why do you say that QM is tautological? It seems that you are saying that Qm is mathematically and internally consistent, but that we cannot know that it is true of objectively reality. How does it validate itself as a scientific theory if none of its foundational concepts are objectively evident?As a tangent, the difference between Newtonian, quantum, and relativistic science is what basic or “undefinable” terms you start with. This is why I think that we can say that QM is tautological, even when later on we come up with a deeper physics underlying it.
I disagree. It think that as soon as you accept logic as that which is grounded in objective reality, you cannot fail to know Gods existence as defined by his attributes; minus the trinity and historical details such as the resurrection.The term, “proof of God’s existence”, does not guarantee absolute certainty, such as a mathematical theorem. Quantum physics can only provide additional circumstantial evidence. One should remember, a jury can render a verdict upon a large body of circumstantial evidence, yet not have absolute certainty.
It’s incredible intelligence and honesty to say that you know more than all the physicists and philosophers of the world?Its either incredible arrogance, or incredible intelligence and honesty. Like I said show of hands is meaningless in this context.
They are to me.why do you say that QM is tautological? It seems that you are saying that Qm is mathematically and internally consistent, but that we cannot know that it is true of objectively reality. How does it validate itself as a scientific theory if none of its foundational concepts are objectively evident?
Well, the vacuum is nothing, but it has a measurable energy, and particles are constantly popping in and out of existence due to the quantum uncertainty in their existence. Your mental construct may be simple, but it’s not necessarily useful for describing the real world.Something; is that which has being. Nothing, is that which has no being. Its quite simple. The two are not identical in actual reality.
I accept logic as grounded in objective reality, but all I can tell using logic about God is that something or someone caused the Big Bang - nothing else. And it isn’t because I haven’t spent years studying Aquinas’ proofs. Unfortunately Aquinas’ physics was bunk.I disagree. It think that as soon as you accept logic as that which is grounded in objective reality, you cannot fail to know Gods existence as defined by his attributes; minus the trinity and historical details such as the resurrection.
I do not accept Aquinas or Aristotle’s physics. Like I said, don’t confuse physics with metaphysics. A lot of people unfortunately do this and then assume out of hand that metaphysics must be false because their physics was wrong. But this only shows their ignorance of what metaphysics actually is, and the principles that are employed in the service of metaphysics.I accept logic as grounded in objective reality, but all I can tell using logic about God is that something or someone caused the Big Bang - nothing else. And it isn’t because I haven’t spent years studying Aquinas’ proofs. Unfortunately Aquinas’ physics was bunk.
But their metaphysics is grounded in their physics - the argument for God as “First Mover”, for example, which doesn’t work if you grant the principle of inertia. (Motion is relative - talking about Galilean relativity here, without even getting into Einstein - and there’s no reason why two particles couldn’t colllide after having been moving along straight trajectories since the beginning of time, and hence no proof that God exists. You don’t need to get put into motion in order to be moving, because whether you’re moving or not depends on which frame of reference you’re measuring the motion from.)I do not accept Aquinas or Aristotle’s physics. Like I said, don’t confuse physics with metaphysics. A lot of people unfortunately do this and then assume out of hand that metaphysics must be false because their physics was wrong. But this only shows their ignorance of what metaphysics actually is, and the principles that are employed in the service of metaphysics.
Edaward Fessers got a good book on the subject. edwardfeser.blogspot.com/
You are evidently talking about something, for instance the “vacuum”. To call the vacuum nothing while in first place describing it as something in which things occur, is contradictory and meaningless.Well, the vacuum is nothing
.
“Nothing” has two different meanings. It (a) can be reified and spoken about as the subject of a sentence, as something with properties, as we do when we speak of the vacuum, or when a philosopher like Fridugise of Tours or Martin Heidegger speaks of “nothing”. Or (b) it can have a purely grammatical function, to indicate that we are not talking about anything (as when I say “there is nothing in the room”).You are evidently talking about something, for instance the “vacuum”. To call the vacuum nothing while in first place describing it as something in which things occur, is contradictory and meaningless.
Unless, however, you are employing the word metaphorically, like somebody might say that a room has nothing in it. They are saying that which we would expect or would think to be present in the room, or is present in other rooms, is not present in this particular room. But they are not saying that “nothing” is ontologically present in the room; since there is no ontology or reality in nothing.