The Impossibility Of Absolutely-Nothing And the Necessity Of A Fundamental Unchanging Act Of Reality

[itsjustme]

Firstly, there could very well be a block universe, but i don’t know what time would have to do with it since it does not change, and we are certainly not in one

I disagree, it’s entirely possible that we’re in one. One in which not only our past, present, and future exists, but one in which every possible past, present, and future exists. And you’re right, in such an unchanging reality, time would have nothing to do with it. But we obviously experience time, so how could we possibly be living in such an unchanging reality?

It’s possible, if it’s not physical reality that’s changing, but rather it’s us…the observer, that’s changing. And when I say us, I mean the conscious component of us. The part that knows, and experiences, and comprehends that it exists. After all, that’s the only part that we can be absolutely certain is changing.

And the thing is that nobody seems know where that consciousness comes from. In fact many people believe that it’s impossible for physical reality to give rise to consciousness at all. If they’re right then it doesn’t matter that physical reality isn’t changing, because physical reality isn’t the cause of consciousness anyway.

So we may in fact be living in some sort of block universe, in which the only thing changing is our conscious perception of it. And the question that we need to ask ourselves is…if physical reality didn’t give rise to consciousness, then what did? Or is consciousness just as much a necessary act of reality as everything else is?

1. It’s features are arbitrary. Why would a necessary universe be made of 1 duck or 2 ducks, or three stars or 10 quasars, or any other quantity you could imagine? In other-words it’s a brute fact that doesn’t follow out of necessity.

If a necessary reality is quantum in nature then it’s not a question of why it was created with one duck or two ducks, because it wasn’t “created” at all, it’s just the nature of a necessary act of existence that it contain every possible version of reality, with every possible number of ducks. The real question would be, what is it that determines whether you’re in a reality with one duck or two ducks? The simplest answer to that question is…because there’s a “you” in every version of reality in which you can exist. Each of them asking this exact same question.

1. Secondly, a fundamental necessary act of reality is not limited in it’s act of reality. It has the fullness of reality and does not lack anything.

Again, if reality is quantum in nature then it would contain every possible version of reality. And it would…as you say…have the fullness of reality and lack nothing. It would only be each individual conscious perception of it that could be said to lack something. Yet consciousness as a whole, i.e the collection of every possible consciousness, in every possible version of reality, would actually lack nothing.

So, we may in fact be living in some type of block universe. One which lacks absolutely nothing, and in which every part is a necessary part.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Again, if reality is quantum in nature then it would contain every possible version of reality. And it would therefore possess the fullness of reality, and lack nothing.

The problem is, the wave function isn’t a bunch of well-defined possible classical states sitting next to each other. The different possibilities blur together or overlap. So all the different worlds, including ours, should be blurring together or overlapping. The universe should be an amorphous structure. The planet earth, for example, wouldn’t have a well defined location, nor would practically anything. But that’s not what we actually observe.

 

[IWantGod]

I beg to differ, it’s entirely possible that we’re in one. One in which not only our past, present, and future exists, but one in which every possible past, present, and future exists.

Change exist in this universe so it can’t possibly be true that change does not occur. Although there are perhaps universes that are block-like and changing.

 

[itsjustme]

The problem is, the wave function isn’t a bunch of well-defined possible classical states sitting next to each other.

Ahh…from your perspective it isn’t. From your perspective it only has a specific physical form at a specific time. But every other version is no doubt thinking the exact same thing.

 

[itsjustme]

Change exist in this universe so it can’t possibly be true that change does not occur. Although there are perhaps universes that are block-like and changing.

All that you can be certain of is that change exists in your perception of this universe. Did you actually take the time to read the entire post?

I have edited since you posted, perhaps you should go back and read it again.

 

[IWantGod]

All that you can be certain of is that change exists in your perception of this universe.

Where have i heard this before ? If that were true you wouldn’t be able to interact with anything. You wouldn’t be able to displace anything, such as light. And you certainly couldn’t type the post i just quoted above.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Ahh…from your perspective it isn’t. From your perspective it only has a specific physical form at a specific time. But every other version is no doubt thinking the exact same thing.

This doesn’t adress the problem with your interpretation of quantum mechanics (that seems a Multiple World Interpretation ).

 

[itsjustme]

This doesn’t adress the problem with your interpretation of quantum mechanics (that seems a Multiple World Interpretation ).

Show me an interpretation of quantum mechanics that doesn’t have a problem, and I’ll gladly go with that one.

 

[itsjustme]

If that were true you wouldn’t be able to interact with anything. You wouldn’t be able to displace anything, such as light. And you certainly couldn’t type the post i just quoted above.

The point is, that even if you were living in a block universe in which nothing was actually changing except your perception of reality, it would look EXACTLY the same. You wouldn’t notice any difference.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Show me an interpretation of quantum mechanics that doesn’t have a problem, and I’ll gladly go with that one.

Among the existing interpretations, the Copenaghen Interpretation is the prevalent and the less problematic, as far as I know. What’s your justification for coming up with the Multiple Worlds Interpretation?

 

[itsjustme]

Among the existing interpretations, the Copenaghen Interpretation is the prevalent and the less problematic, as far as I know.

There is of course no way for me to prove you wrong, although I might question your characterization of the Copenhagen Interpretation as being less problematic.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

However, how would you solve the problem I mentioned? Also, given the current scientific knowledge (wich is still limited ), wich interpretation of QM one takes is still largely dependent on his/her philosophical positions, so I would avoid using QM in a philosophical discussion, at least until something conclusive will be discovered by physicists about it.

 

[IWantGod]

it would look EXACTLY the same.

No it wouldn’t because you wouldn’t be able to interact with anything. You wouldn’t be able to displace anything, such as light. And you certainly couldn’t type the post i just quoted above.

 

[itsjustme]

No it wouldn’t because you wouldn’t be able to interact with anything

And it wouldn’t matter, because it would still look EXACTLY the same. I gave you a description of a block universe that seems to fit exactly with your definition of a necessary act, and yet you summarily reject it because it doesn’t behave the way that you think it should behave.

I’m sorry, but if an exact match won’t convince you then I don’t think that anything will.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

All that you can be certain of is that change exists in your perception of this universe.

1. I think, therefore I exist, at least as a sentient being.
2. The universe is defined as the totality of existence. Therefore, if I exist (1), I am part of the universe.
3. My perception of things is part of me, as a sentient being. Therefore, if I am part of the universe (2), my perception of things is part of the universe.
4. Change occurs in my perception of things. Therefore, if my perception of things is part of the universe (3), change occurs in the universe.
   Conclusion: the universe is not unchanging.

 

[IWantGod]

it would still look EXACTLY the same.

But it wouldn’t be the same. Looks have nothing to do with it. If you was in a block universe you wouldn’t be able to interact with anything . You wouldn’t be able to displace anything , such as light. And you certainly couldn’t type the post i just quoted above.

So our experience of this universe cannot just be a change in our perception.

I gave you a description of a block universe that seems to fit exactly with your definition of a necessary act, and yet you summarily reject it

Because of the following quote.

Having said that there are reasons for rejecting the idea that fundamental reality is a natural cause ( Lets call our hypothetical universe a static physical universe, S.P.U. ). So we have a static universe with stars and space but no processes, no physical activity, no transference of energy. The first glaring problem is the very fact that an S.P.U. * is a static physical object with no natural processes, and thus one cannot say that other possible universes is the natural end of a S.P.U. *. Without natural processes it is not a natural cause. Since it is necessary , it cannot transform into other universes. Thus other possible universes (including our universe) are not or cannot be a natural parts of the S.P.U. *. Which is a serious problem, in fact it is impossible that an S.P.U. * is the fundamental ground of all possible universes.

 

[IWantGod]

And also this…

There are 2 other reasons for rejecting a quantifiable object (such as the S.P.U) as the ground of all possible realities, such as the fact that we talking about something that is made of parts and has finite dimensions. The problem arises with the fact that it is a limited reality which could be bigger or smaller, brighter or more powerful. There two problems with this,…

1. It’s features are arbitrary. Why would a necessary universe be made of 1 duck or 2 ducks, or three stars or 10 quasars, or any other quantity you could imagine? In other-words it’s a brute fact that doesn’t follow out of necessity. For example we know why the space in our universe is huge, because it expanded. We know why black-holes and quasars exist in our universe and that is because of blind-natural processes. But with the S.P.U. * none of those things are happening (there are no processes that act toward a natural end) and neither is it’s contents derived from necessity (meaning, the reason they are there is arbitrary), so why would it exist? In fact why would an S.P.U. * exist at all?
2. Secondly, a fundamental necessary act of reality is not limited in it’s act of reality. It has the fullness of reality and does not lack anything. It cannot get more reality from some where else because it is the very ground of all possibility; there is nothing else. And so it is meaningless to describe such a being as being limited in any way. Physical reality is limited. It can be bigger or smaller, it has parts, it has dimensions. It has limitations in it’s act of reality precisely because it’s a quantifiable being, and there is no rational reason for it to be that way (any particular size shape or quantity) out of necessity. It’s limitation is potentially infinite no matter what is imagined or added. it can always be more and is never complete.

That which is a quantity cannot be said to have the fullness of reality because there is no natural end that can define it’s completeness; it can always be relatively more of something. That which has the fullness of reality is everything that it can possibly be.

 

[itsjustme]

itsjustme:

it would still look EXACTLY the same.

But it wouldn’t be the same. Looks have nothing to do with it . If you was in a block universe you wouldn’t be able to interact with anything . You wouldn’t be able to displace anything , such as light. And you certainly couldn’t type the post i just quoted above.

A block universe would do more than just look exactly the same, it would act exactly the same as well.

The idea that we’re living in a block universe isn’t just a quantum mechanical concept. It was a theistic concept long before physics came along.

According to theists the past, present, and future are all equally real to God. From God’s perspective there’s no point in time that bears the distinction of being “now”. To God we’re living in a block universe in which the past, present, and future exist simultaneously.

So whether you’re a theist or a physicist it doesn’t matter, the conclusion must be the same…we may be living in a block universe. And the only question left to be answered is…how is that possible?

 

[IWantGod]

According to theists the past, present, and future are all equally real to God.

Because God is not a temporal being, God isn’t physical and is the ontological context in which physical things happen, and so it is meaningless to think that God’s being is limited to the temporal order.

That may be difficult to grasp, but it is certainly not the same thing as a block universe as you describe it. We displace objects within space-time, we displace light, we interact with physical objects. And like @LeonardDeNoblac said, if only physical things exist, and we are apart of physical reality, and our perception is changing, then it follows necessarily that physical reality is changing. None of the things i have just mentioned would be possible if physical reality was not subject to change.

And there is a whole host of other problems that arise if our universe does not change.

For example, gravity would become meaningless because there are no physical processes. Time is meaningless because there is no change. And if there is no change you can throw quantum physics out of the window along with the entire contents of the house because concepts like randomness and ideas that involve the probability of an event becomes meaningless in an unchanging reality that has no beginning or end.

 

[itsjustme]

1. I think, therefore I exist, at least as a sentient being.
2. The universe is defined as the totality of existence. Therefore, if I exist (1), I am part of the universe.
3. My perception of things is part of me, as a sentient being. Therefore, if I am part of the universe (2), my perception of things is part of the universe.
4. Change occurs in my perception of things. Therefore, if my perception of things is part of the universe (3), change occurs in the universe.
   Conclusion : the universe is not unchanging.

I can follow your reasoning, but I think that it contains some fundamental flaws, not the least of which is premise #2. If we define the universe as the totality of existence, then doesn’t that mean that God…if He exists, is part of the universe? And what about the past, present, and future? What if they exist, then they’re part of the universe too. And what about changes? What if they exist, then they’re part of the universe as well. They wouldn’t be something that happens to the universe, they’d be part of the universe.

This isn’t meant to dismiss your argument, it’s simply meant to show that you have to be very careful when laying out your premises. In this case we have to be careful about how we define “the universe”. Because how we define it affects our conclusions.

Which leads to my question, is my perspective of the universe, part of the universe? In this case @IWantGod was very helpful, because he argued, in essence, that God’s perspective of the universe is independent of the universe itself. But what if my perspective of the universe is independent of the universe as well? Perhaps God and I have our own distinct yet independent perspectives on the universe, mine is a temporal one, and God’s isn’t.

It’s as if both God and I are viewing a block universe, we’re simply viewing it from different perspectives.