. . . science can't avoid philosophy while at the same time its methods don't lead to the Ideas — Gregory

You don't think the methods of quantum mechanics have led to impressive ideas? All the mathematics and mechanical expertise involved don't lead to ideas? Scientists have to wait patiently for philosophers to ruminate about their work?

Science is fine but it doesn't go anywhere — Gregory

:roll:

I feel the need to point out that the folk here are not philosophers, and that the rubbish on this thread is no more philosophy than the random unfounded speculation found elsewhere on the internet is physics or maths.

Science and math are not about philosophy except when one (Hume for example) make philosophical comments on it. Scientists usually miss the point about that stuff and this is why there is division of disciplines. But this is after all a philosophy forum right?

So if it were up to you people would be banned for promoting Platonism, neo-Platonism, or continental philosophy because it is not philosophy? We are on opposite ends because i don't consider logical positivism to be philosophy but my philosophy is what has traditionally been called philosophy for thousands of years. For me modern positivism attempts to numb the parts of the soul that want to do philosophy and they try to examine what is left as this doubt reveals the truth as reduced to perfection. But basically they are just become materialists. I heard recently Richard Dawking saying "we dont know how consciousness arises but we are working on it". Isn't the brain enough? *What kind of answer is he looking for?* Is a part of the brain or QM any more explanitory? What material explanation will ever satisfy him. Science is like "we found the meaning of life: it's helium!" Or whatever. Obviously its just about matter yet they think if they focus on matter long enough the answers to life will emerge. And that's nonsense. Science is good at making life comfortable if it's done by good people. Yet science is simply pointless because it can't say what "good" is.

How is my position objectionable?

How is my position objectionable? — Gregory

I guess one could say that centuries of philosophy have yet to demonstrate that Platonism and transcendence are true. But I'll concede as faith based positions they have a perennial appeal (no pun intended).

@Banno is not a logical positivist and I recall him criticizing scientism on numerous occasions. Seems to me he is simply arguing for a more careful approach to philosophy, to be more scrupulous with one's assumptions and the use of language.

I heard recently Richard Dawking saying "we dont know how consciousness arises but we are working on it". Isn't the brain enough? — Gregory

It's Richard Dawkins. And I don't recall anyone here bringing him up as a philosopher, despite what the media in their confusions might do for clicks and confected outrage. He may be correct on this. I doubt many on this site are qualified to know.

I think the debate between those who would hold to transcendental entities and those who do not is one that seems vital and worth pursuing. I don't believe that humans have access to any other realm and not being a theoretical physicist or significant intellectual with documented work behind me in neuroscience or philosophy (like most here), I will simply sit back and watch the endless debate between the self-educated and untheorized play out.

How is my position objectionable? — Gregory

I don't think it objectionable so much as incoherent.

All you've succeeded in doing is making the grammatical point that if there is something then there is not nothing. — Banno

Platonism is the error of reifying grammar. I have nothing in my pocket - you can have it for a reasonable remittance.

Cheers.

I feel the need to point out that the folk here are not philosophers, and that the rubbish on this thread is no more philosophy than the random unfounded speculation found elsewhere on the internet is physics or maths. — Banno

Yes, but what I am wondering is why do you feel the need? Ah, I know, it must be to help us poor people out, to let us know that we are not philosophers because, after all, if you say we are not, it must be true. How lucky we all are to have you to set us straight. If there is so much ‘rubbish’ on this thread, I only wonder why you have wasted so much time reading all of it, and then going even further by actually taking the time to comment on it.

Me, I may not agree with everything other people say, but I have the decency to respect their views and not attempt to demean them. I don’t see any good reason for doing that at all.

Grammar is the one thing that Platonism has nothing to do with. There is science, philosophy as applied to science (which can never be finally solved), and pure philosophy. Plato dealt with ideas which have no relation to words except when they are communicated by grunts

...what I am wondering is why do you feel the need? — Beverley

Because I care about philosophy, and would like to see it done well.

had expressed some disillusionment with Philosophy as compared to Maths. it was simply to remind him that what is happening here is atypical of philosophy generally. It's no more exemplary than say supposing that mathematicians spend their time multiplying very big numbers.

Yes, the tone was grumpy, but most of the posts on this thread are rubbish.

Grammar is the one thing that Platonism has nothing to do with. — Gregory

But

Grammar, usually taken to consist of the rules of correct syntactic and semantic usage, becomes, in Wittgenstein’s hands, the wider—and more elusive—notion which captures the essence of language as a special rule-governed activity. — SEP

The problem wan't clear in my joke, it seems, so I'll add a bit of explanation. So "I have sand in my pocket" implies that there is a thing - the sand - in my pocket. "I have nothing in my pocket" has the same grammar. Does it imply that I have a thing - the nothing - in my pocket?

No, because the deeper grammatical structure of each is very different. "I have sand in my pocket" sets out a first-order relation between being in a pocket and sand - "There is a something such that it is sand and it is in my pocket". But "I have nothing in my pocket" has the structure "it is not the case that there is something and it is in my pocket" or "for all things, none are in my pocket". In logical terms, the former is a first order predication, the latter a negative existential quantification.

This is the sort of grammatical frippery to which I was alluding.

I understand and appreciate your point although i have not read enough Wittgenstein to make a judgment about what he thought. Hume talks about impressions as opposed to ideas. For me grammer is the bridge between impressions and thought. But we can still have thoughts that language cannot capture because thought, in Hegel's language, has form and also content. Form is how thinking relates to language and perception. But philosophy tries to give rise in the individual student to ideas eternal, beyond words and world. Yet you seem to think that philosophy is just a game (but one that needs to be played properly), as when you said Hegel arguments are is reality just rhetoric

Absolute nothingness is impossible, but it would not be impossible if it were not for the existence of something.

The bold part seems equivalent to:
Absolute nothingness is impossible because something exists.
and
Something exists: therefore absolute nothingness is impossible

So you seem to be saying: absolute nothingness would be possible if there were absolute nothingness. This seems vacuous: you seem to be basing your claim on a tautology: If X than possibly(X).

Well, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one can make shite up, I supose.

But I prefer admitting our limits to such pretence.

What remains is that something, negation and nothing are the results from the application of grammar rather than things in the world. Not sure what the Hegel comment you refer to was.

The bold part seems equivalent to:
Absolute nothingness is impossible because something exists.
and
Something exists: therefore absolute nothingness is impossible — Relativist

What are the connections / relations between something and absolute nothingness?

What are the connections / relations between something and absolute nothingness? — Corvus

I don't see how there could be any. Nothingness is a concept that is mentally constructed by subtraction, but it has no real-world analogue.

I don't see how there could be any. Nothingness is a concept that is mentally constructed by subtraction, but it has no real-world analogue. — Relativist

But isn't the subtraction external to your mind? Surely you must have subtracted something from something else from the objects external to youself. You couldn't possibly subtract a concept from the concept, or did you?

Or is it also an internal mental event?

But isn't the subtraction external to your mind? — Corvus

No. Concepts are mental "objects", and the subtraction process is entirely a mental activity.

No. Concepts are mental "objects", and the subtraction process is entirely a mental activity. — Relativist

But you still need data to subtract from outside of you? You must know what you are to subtract from what. That what must come from outside of you? If you say, no, then how do you know what to subtract from what?

No. Concepts are mental "objects", and the subtraction process is entirely a mental activity. — Relativist

Anyhow "Absolute Nothingness" itself must be from external to you, because without the object called "abstract nothingness", how could you have formed the concept inside your mind? Where did it come from? What gave a birth to the concept "Absolute Nothingness"?

You must have known something about it too. If you didn't know anything about it, then how could you deny its existence?

And for something X to be impossible, it must first exist. If it doesn't exist at all, then how could be judged as impossible?

I'm agreeing with you. It's my first comment on this because I don't think absolute nothingness can exists in the universe as we know it. In the coldest, sparsest regions of the universe there would be stars twinkling in the far distance.

Mental objects do exist and it's were the abstract concepts of absolute nothingness shows up.

As far as external data....what is that? It's physical matter that the brain must interpret through our senses.

"Absolute Nothingness" itself must be from external to you, because without the object called "abstract nothingness", how could you have formed the concept inside your mind? Where did it come from? What gave a birth to the concept "Absolute Nothingness"? — Corvus

Nothingness is an abstraction mentally constructed from other abstractions: in particular, set theory. It is similar to the concept of an empty set. Empty sets don't exist in the real world: they are defined as sets with no members, while sets are purely conceptual groupings.

And for something X to be impossible, it must first exist. I — Corvus

That's self-contradictory.

Nothingness is an abstraction mentally constructed from other abstractions: in particular, set theory. It is similar to the concept of an empty set. Empty sets don't exist in the real world: they are defined as sets with no members, while sets are purely conceptual groupings. — Relativist

That cannot be always the case. You can make up an empty set from a biscuit tin, which contain no biscuits. Empty set can be made up from empirical world objects.

And for something X to be impossible, it must first exist. I
— Corvus
That's self-contradictory. — Relativist

How could something be impossible in the actual world, if it didn't exist?

You can make up an empty set from a biscuit tin, which contain no biscuits. Empty set can be made up from empirical world objects. — Corvus

You haven't made an empty set, you have conceptualized one. Sure, you can conceptualize nothingness by starting with an empty biscuit tin, then conceptually disregard the air it contains, the quantum fields that exist everywhere, and then ignore the biscuit tin itself. What's left: nothing is left.

How could something be impossible in the actual world, if it didn't exist? — Corvus

If something is impossible, it cannot exist. It is impossible to be simultaneously married and unmarried, so it is impossible for someone to be a married bachelor.

You haven't made an empty set, you have conceptualized one. Sure, you can conceptualize nothingness by starting with an empty biscuit tin, then conceptually disregard the air it contains, the quantum fields that exist everywhere, and then ignore the biscuit tin itself. What's left: nothing is left. — Relativist

Yes, that is where nothingness comes from. Therefore the origin of nothingness is external to human mind, not internal to human mind.

If something is impossible, it cannot exist. It is impossible to be simultaneously married and unmarried, so it is impossible for someone to be a married bachelor. — Relativist

But married and unmarried is not existence. They are analytic concepts. But think of this case. For you to make a meaningful statement that it is impossible for you to be married or unmarried, you must first exist. If you didn't exist, it is impossible to say that it is impossible for you to be married or unmarried.

Yes, that is where nothingness comes from. Therefore the origin of nothingness is external to human mind, not internal to human mind. — Corvus

You're blurring the distinction between the objects of the world (the ontic) and concepts we formulate in our minds. Nothingness is a concept (not ontic). We formulate it based on other concepts (eg the concept of an empty biscuit tin). Biscuit tins are ontic, but there are no biscuit tins that are truly devoid of contents. That's pure conceptualization without any real world referrent: nothingness is not ontic.

But married and unmarried is not existence. — Corvus

My point was that a phrase that entails a contradiction cannot have an ontic referrent (i.e. there can exist no object that is described by a contradiction; it is logically impossible). You had said, "And for something X to be impossible, it must first exist". It makes no sense to claim an impossibility has to exist. I think this may get back to your blurring of the conceptual with the ontic.

Nothingness is a concept (not ontic). We formulate it based on other concepts (eg the concept of an empty biscuit tin). Biscuit tins are ontic, but there are no biscuit tins that are truly devoid of contents. That's pure conceptualization without any real world referrent: nothingness is not ontic. — Relativist

Nothingness is a concept, but it is also ontic. Nothingness is the only concept which can be applied to space. Because they share common qualities such as emptiness and invisibility. Nothingness / space is the prior condition for the biscuits to exist in the tin. If the tin had no space (nothingness) in it, and it was filled with full of candies, then you cannot put your cookies in it.

When you say Absolute Nothingness, it would be the space with absolutely nothing in it, not even a particle of air. The total vacuum state of the space can be called Absolute Nothingness.

My point was that a phrase that entails a contradiction cannot have an ontic referrent (i.e. there can exist no object that is described by a contradiction; it is logically impossible). You had said, "And for something X to be impossible, it must first exist". It makes no sense to claim an impossibility has to exist. I think this may get back to your blurring of the conceptual with the ontic. — Relativist

This is wrong assumption. For something to create a contradiction, it must be existence either in the actual world as physical objects or in the propositions. You cannot make a meaningful statement about something, if something was not existent. Because to know something was contradictory, you must have known or perceived the object or concept you are stating about.

When you say Absolute Nothingness, it would be the space with absolutely nothing in it, not even a particle of air. The total vacuum state of the space can be called Absolute Nothingness. — Corvus

I take it that by "absolute nothingness" one means absolute non-being rather than being which is devoid of things and hence thingness. Nirvana, as one example, is reputed to be devoid of any thingness while yet being, hence not being nothingness.

If so, in which sense can space occur, i.e. be, in the absence of any and all distances?:

Distance is always relative to things - even if they're construed to not be material (e.g., the distance between two psyches: two psyches might be very far apart, this being a distance, strictly due to their differing views ... if, that is, one were to not take this example as being purely metaphorical). At any rate, here is my contention:

If there are no things between which there is distance, then there is no occurring distance period. And if there is no occurring distance, I so far fail to see how there can occur any sensible understanding of space. Again, what does distance-less space signify?

(The quantum vacuum state yet has distances between particles that appear out of it and disappear into it, for instance.)

I take it that by "absolute nothingness" one means absolute non-being rather than being which is devoid of things and hence thingness. Nirvana, as one example, is reputed to be devoid of any thingness while yet being, hence not being nothingness. — javra

That is an interesting view on Absolute Nothingness. As long as you have arguments with possibly some evidence, we are interested in looking into the ideas.

There are a few possible cases that Absolute Nothingness can be attributed to, from metaphysical, logical, epistemological, physical and even linguistic perspectives. If we look at it from linguistic and logical perspectives, we call the planet venus as morning star or evening star. Then why couldn't you call an isolated empty space as absolute nothingness? Because they share the common qualities for the concepts and existence. Absolute space is also a physical entity demonstrated by Newton in his bucket experiment.

If so, in which sense can space occur, i.e. be, in the absence of any and all distances?:

Distance is always relative to things - even if they're construed to not be material (e.g., the distance between two psyches: two psyches might be very far apart, this being a distance, strictly due to their differing views ... if, that is, one were to not take this example as being purely metaphorical). At any rate, here is my contention:

If there are no things between which there is distance, then there is no occurring distance period. And if there is no occurring distance, I so far fail to see how there can occur any sensible understanding of space. Again, what does distance-less space signify?

(The quantum vacuum state yet has distances between particles that appear out of it and disappear into it, for instance.) — javra

I will think about this point, and get back here for update, if I can come up with any idea either for agreeing or disagreeing. But here is a good article on the topic in SEP.

Nothingness is a concept, but it is also ontic. — Corvus

Ontic= existing. Nothingness is an absence of existence. Nothingness existing is self-contradictory, like married bachelor.

The total vacuum state of the space can be called Absolute Nothingness. — Corvus

No, it can't. Quantum fields exist at every point in space.

Ontic= existing. Nothingness is an absence of existence. Nothingness existing is self-contradictory, like married bachelor. — Relativist

Things can be existent, not existent or half existent too. An absence of existence is also an existence.
Every existence has its history of existence. Prior to the existence, it was non existence i.e. an absence of existence. Then there were conditions for the birth of existence, and that is how all existence came to being existence.

A married bachelor is possible logically and in the real world. A bachelor just signed for the marriage certificate in the registry office, but not having gone through the religious ceremony yet is a married bachelor under the eyes of the religious community he belongs.

Things can be existent, not existent or half existent too. — Corvus

To be a thing is to exist. If you don't understand that, then there's no point discussing further.