Comments on: Why is There Something Rather than Nothing? http://physics101.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/why-there-is-something-and-not-nothing/ Two sources, one field - musings on why things are the way they are Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:02:08 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Tarun http://physics101.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/why-there-is-something-and-not-nothing/#comment-8 Tarun Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:37:52 +0000 http://physics101.wordpress.com/?p=7#comment-8 I don't have any definite answers to your question, and I don't think that at the moment anyone else has them either. However, it might be of some interest to you to take a look at the idea of strange loop by Douglas Hofstadter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop May be the hierarchy of causes is such a strange loop. At least this will ameliorate the problem of the first cause. However, the trouble with any such hierarchy is that we are able to look at it from outside (a meta-view), and thus we can always ask why that loop exist at all. So I don't know what form such an explanation must take that it gets us out of this meta-meta... trap. I don’t have any definite answers to your question, and I don’t think that at the moment anyone else has them either. However, it might be of some interest to you to take a look at the idea of strange loop by Douglas Hofstadter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop
May be the hierarchy of causes is such a strange loop. At least this will ameliorate the problem of the first cause. However, the trouble with any such hierarchy is that we are able to look at it from outside (a meta-view), and thus we can always ask why that loop exist at all. So I don’t know what form such an explanation must take that it gets us out of this meta-meta… trap.

]]> By: ravithekavi http://physics101.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/why-there-is-something-and-not-nothing/#comment-7 ravithekavi Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:13:10 +0000 http://physics101.wordpress.com/?p=7#comment-7 "Perhaps we haven’t yet developed the language required to understand why there is something rather than nothing!" Where do you think the hints to this 'new language' may lie? Is there any 'language' other than causality? Isn't causality very much rooted in and a part of the thinking process? When any conceptual advance is made, isn't is basically an effect of the advances that precede it? Is not then causality fundamental to the way we think? I did raise the question of causality, if you remember, here: http://csecduac.in/viewtopic.php?t=679 Here's the relevant excerpt: "If you were to seek a reason to everything you encounter, you would find a cause to every effect and a cause to the cause of each effect. Keep doing that – searching for a cause to one thing and following it up by looking for a cause to the cause of each effect you encounter in the process – and sooner or later you will find an effect that has an unknown cause (if it has any!). This effect turns out to be the “ultimate” cause unless you manage to find a cause to this effect. But if you do find one, you wonder: what is the cause of this cause? The point where you give up looking for a cause becomes your fundamental assumption. And at this point you will invariably encounter a circular argument: the “ultimate” cause turns out to be an effect of its immediate effect. It defines your limitation in being able to ascribe a cause to all effects. Thus to begin with you have to make a fundamental assumption – the “ultimate” cause that leads to everything else." “Perhaps we haven’t yet developed the language required to understand why there is something rather than nothing!”

Where do you think the hints to this ‘new language’ may lie? Is there any ‘language’ other than causality? Isn’t causality very much rooted in and a part of the thinking process? When any conceptual advance is made, isn’t is basically an effect of the advances that precede it? Is not then causality fundamental to the way we think?

I did raise the question of causality, if you remember, here: http://csecduac.in/viewtopic.php?t=679

Here’s the relevant excerpt:

“If you were to seek a reason to everything you encounter, you would find a cause to every effect and a cause to the cause of each effect. Keep doing that – searching for a cause to one thing and following it up by looking for a cause to the cause of each effect you encounter in the process – and sooner or later you will find an effect that has an unknown cause (if it has any!). This effect turns out to be the “ultimate” cause unless you manage to find a cause to this effect. But if you do find one, you wonder: what is the cause of this cause? The point where you give up looking for a cause becomes your fundamental assumption. And at this point you will invariably encounter a circular argument: the “ultimate” cause turns out to be an effect of its immediate effect. It defines your limitation in being able to ascribe a cause to all effects. Thus to begin with you have to make a fundamental assumption – the “ultimate” cause that leads to everything else.”

]]>