Why not nothing?

[shnarkle]

It's an old question. One that Heidegger and others have puzzled over for centuries. We can ask these why questions about anything and everything, but when it comes to "why No-thing" there is no possible answer to the question. So why is it still a meaningful question? If there is nothing to ask about, then what is the meaning of why?

Perhaps we could say it is a contradictory question. How can there be a why to ask a why when the why asks nothing? After all, nothing has no reason to be what it isn't. An empty thought is not an answer. If nothingness were the answer, there would be no question and no one to ask the question in the first place.

However, when the question is put to Being, Nothingness can be assumed as a real possibility. These formal extrapolations need not be sustained by a real state of affairs. This suggests a further inquiry into why or how there can be thoughts independant of any content of thought. The question itself relegates being to the sidelines in favor of "pure" thought, or as Thomas asserts:

"If God has created out of nothing, the proper and ultimate nature of the creature is nothingness" - de aeternitate mundi

[Divine Insight]

The double slit experiment is my favorite because it proves that simply by looking at light from a star that could be hundreds of thousands of light years away, we have effectively changed the course that light took to reach our eyes. Our observations actually change the way light moved through space hundreds of thousands of lightyears ago.

Clearly you are not a scientist. Science does not claim that your observations change anything that may have happened in the past. Nor does it claim that your observations of light determines the path that light has taken.

Apparently you've been reading a lot of philosophical guessing about what Quantum Mechanics supposedly has to say about the real world.

According to Richard Feynman light takes all possible paths. How do you expect to change that?

I can only suggest you read up on the double slit experiment because it proves conclusively that simply observing the experiment changes the outcome. It literally changes how light travels through the slit and appears on photo-reactive media.

It's well documented and the later experiments with multiple avenues for light to travel along with mirrors, and splitting the beams are also quite elaborate and conclusive as well. I'm actually a bit surprised you are unaware of these quite old experiments. We used to do this in grade school. Space-Time isn't linear either, so until you get up to date, perhaps it would be better if we table this discussion until you've had time to google it. There are obviously better places to get the full details, but the online information is accurate.

I'm totally aware of all of these experiments and I have been studying this stuff for many decades. The conclusions you have been taught are simply wrong. In fact, I already stated that Richard Feynman explained all of this. Perhaps you should study Richard Feynman's Path over Histories explanation. Then you can explain to the people who tell you that the observer is changing the path that light takes why they are wrong.

[shnarkle]

I'm totally aware of all of these experiments and I have been studying this stuff for many decades.

Well, evidently you aren't as aware as you believe.

The conclusions you have been taught are simply wrong.

I wasn't taught any conclusions. These are the conclusions derived from the evidence which has been reproduced repeatedly for decades.

In fact, I already stated that Richard Feynman explained all of this.

I'm familiar with Feynman's explanations. Your statements contradict his. I'll stick with the scientific consensus. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject.

[Divine Insight]

I'm familiar with Feynman's explanations. Your statements contradict his. I'll stick with the scientific consensus. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject.

I seriously doubt that the scientific community would back you up on this. What you are talking about is more like what the hippies of the 50's and 60's were trying to claim with their books like "The Tao of Physics", etc.

That's not supported by serious scientists.

You need to stay way from people like Deepak Chopra too. The claims he makes are not supported by modern scientists.

Here's something you might find useful.

[youtube][/youtube]

What you are supporting is nothing more than new-age spiritual nonsense that tries to use quantum mechanics as support. It doesn't work. But it does sell a lot of books.

[marco]

Clearly you are not a scientist. .............................

Apparently you've been reading a lot of philosophical guessing about what Quantum Mechanics supposedly has to say about the real world.

Moderator Comment


There's no problem offering info on science, DI, but you know not to make your suggestions personal.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

I seriously doubt that the scientific community would back you up on this.

Your doubts aren't relevant, nor are your self exclusionary and contradictory claims which I've already addressed with nothing forthcoming to refute them.

Again, while you're welcome to your opinions, they don't seem to be advancing the discussion; just derailing it.

[Divine Insight]

How can a discussion about an unanswerable question be derailed?

Unless of course you believe that you can answer the question.

I think the bottom line is in the fallacy of you original premise in the OP.


In the OP you said:

So why is it still a meaningful question?

Who says that it's a meaningful question?

Is that the argument you are attempting to make?

I don't see where you have established that it is a meaningful question.

I suggest that a question that cannot be answered is a meaningless question, in spite of how much we might desire to have an answer to it.