Consider some object X from which is not possible to obtain any information. In other words, no one can be aware of the existence of X. If this is the case, there is no difference between X and any non-existent thing.
Of course, men are aware of the Universe existence, but men are very recent inhabitants of it. In addition, we are only aware of some small portion.
A good book to read that might give you some clues is the God Problem - How A Godless Cosmos Creates - Howard Bloom 2012 - it is not about God but the relationships or matter - how matter has meaning and is social - how different thinkers have built our knowledge from axioms or as Bloom called them Ur patterns. Thought provoking view from the big bang. Your question could be inferred from the use of metaphor and using metaphor in a new context to create something new.
My comment from a related thread:-
AVOID THE VOID!
If Nothing is, then there is Nothing!
Nothing needs no introduction and was never introduced.
Nothing needs no explanation and doesn’t even have the decency to explain itself.
There is not a ripple on the deep blue sea?
Nothing bothers me!
Satre found his own flesh and the thought that thought itself was intimately entwined with the contingencies of its’ squishy avenues and alleyways a source of existential Nausea. I, on the other hand, find my stomach churning upon the bottomless precipice – of nothing!
Did a universe come crashing into being with all its vasty deeps and screaming Catherine wheels of fire whilst Nothing slept in the other room?
Could all this mayhem have come about and simpered into silence if there was no consciousness to mark it and say that it was so?
........................................................................
Was the Universe born of Nothing? Perhaps not. Perhaps the opposite of the universe is not ‘nothing’ – but another state of ‘something’. Perhaps the‘Big Bang’ was an event that marked a transition from a state of continuity and ‘unity’ (a ‘oneness’) to a state of discontinuity and plurality!
The ‘Fractal Catalytic Model’ (FCM) of living systems resolves the traditional mind/matter problem by deconstructing the material. Within the context of the FCM the observable universe is understood to be the structured evolution of discontinuities (events that collapse the wave function). The only things deemed to have true ontological status are the quantities associated with the un-collapsed wave function.
The un-collapsed wave function is also deemed to be ‘identical’ to a conscious state.
Where this leads to is a form of idealism – the only thing that may be truly claimed to exist within the FCM is consciousness. Non living objects and phenomena are deemed only to be ontologically ‘implicit’ in the pattern of unfolding discontinuities. Indeed, the spacio/temporal structure of the universe itself is understood to be only ‘implicit’ in the pattern of unfolding discontinuities – there is no stuff that might rightly be called ‘space’ or ‘time’ at the macroscopic level.
If the above assertion is correct then there can be no conventional ‘nothing’ or ‘void’ because the supposed material world of existence, within the context of which these concepts derive their meaning, itself does not exist – it is only implicit!
The only true ‘nothing’ then, is the nothing of death – the absence of consciousness.
But, even then........
I am not sure....
Can nothing come from something?
………………………………………………
What careless promise
cast the honest emptiness - with stars?
What cruel caress
distressed the perfect silence of the sea?
and stirred in shadows dreams that rose....
A ripple answered to a breeze... -
A kiss it was
that missed from heaven's heart - a beat
and started life's green ravishing.
Davia, C.J (June 2006), "Life, Catalysis and Excitable Media: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Metabolism and Cognition", in Tuszynski, J.A, The Emerging Physics of Consciousness (The Frontiers Collection), Springer, pp. 255–292, ISBN 978-3540238904
Vimal, R and Davia, C.J. How Long is a Piece of Time – Phenomenal Time and Quantum Coherence – Toward a Solution (2008). Quantum Biosystems. Editor in Chief – Pregnolato, Massimo
"If this is the case, there is no difference between X and any non-existent thing." is not exactly true. There is no subjective difference *for us*, sure, but that has no implications for the objective existence of or non-existence of X. If we can know about X, X may exist (and even that is just a "may", not a "does"; see van Fraassen, Kuhn), but it does not follow that if we cannot know about it, it does not exist.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy