Anti-Materialist

It is going to take me at least 6 weeks to properly ponder Chimp's response. I have read lots of physics-for-laymen kinds of books, and I was a math-econ major in college, so I understand some of what he is talking about - but only some.


The idea of getting something from nothing can be mathematically consistent. For example:

Lettuce assume that zero is nothing.

Then start with the equation:

A=0


You could then change that to:

A= (-1) + (+1)


Negative one plus positive one equal zero.


Now, think of negative one as antimatter, and positive one as matter.


All of a sudden, you have something from nothing. Say, you have an anti-proton and a proton. Mathematically speaking, they could have arisen from nothing.

Except that that is not tue either, because matter and anti-matter do not cancel out to nothing, they cancel out to energy.


Thus, in order to get somthing from nothing, you have to have something called negative mass. And, it can be done. You can conceive of a mathematically consistent construct in which all the plusses and minuses balance out. In which you start with A=0, and wind up with a series of equations that describe a big bang.


But just because it is mathematically consistent doesn't mean it happened that way. I can give you all sorts of examples in mathematics where you can start with an equation, and wind up with a nonsensical result.


Try this for example:

3/X = 0

Then you can multiply both sides by X - which is perfectly consistent with algebraic rules, and you get the following:


3=0


In a world where three equals zero, you might well be able to get something from nothing. However, just because it is consistent with algebraic rules does not mean that it makes sense. 3 is not equal to zero.



So, yes, physicists have done some exceedingly impressive work to create models of a self creating universe that are mathematically consistent. But in order to accept it, you have to accept the assumption that getting something from nothing is possible in the first place.


That assumption is really tough to buy.


I find it much easier to believe that we just don't have all the answers yet. We're trying - really hard - but our existence is still a mystery.


In response to Emotionals comment about faith. I am afraid that I do believe that reason is the be all and end all of existence. However, skepticism cuts both ways. I am skeptical of the current religious world views. I am also skeptical of the current materialist world views. Neither side has presented an argument that works, in my opinion.


To me, it is not a question of believing in God, or disbelieving in God. Neither stance can be logically supported. Instead, it is a matter of choosing that approach to life that gets the best results. Spiritual pursuits are profoundly rewarding - if done in a healthy way. Thus, they are worth pursuing. I believe it is entirely possible to be highly spiritual, and also be absolutely logical.


In fact, that is the reason for all of my postings here. I am trying to create a philosophical system that offers all the practical benefits of spirituality, without causing people stop thinking intelligently. The current religions of the world have caused too much harm. Their beliefs justify crusades and people crashing airplanes into buildings.


The world desperately needs a philosophical system that is both spiritually rewarding, and logically consistent.


My book, Ozhynism.blogspot.com, is my attempt at creating this system. I am throwing all of my ideas out to the wolves on this message board, because I want them to be attacked and torn to shreds repeatedly. That will help me formulate them in a way that is perfectly logical, and thus will work for people who require a belief system that is both spiritually rewarding, and intellectually satisfying.


As the world moves further into the age of reason, we are giving up the old, rather harmful religions of the past. We need something to replace it with. I am hoping that my philosophical system will serve as the seed for that something. It is going to take many thousands of hours, many millions of dollars, and the input of many thousands of people.


But, that's ok - I have many plans on how to provide those things, and it is worth doing.



Hope,

JDL

yguy

Why? How can a philosophical system be spiritually rewarding?

Any philosophical system can be logically consitent within its own frame of reference, but reality has a way of throwing a monkey wrench into the works every time, it seems. I'd try to build a perpetual motion machine before I'd try to build a logically consistent philosophical system. I mean, even if you could construct such a thing, what would it be good for? Such systems are for machines, not men.

yguy

From AM's site:

Celebrate the Small Victories

Life is difficult. We need encouragement to help us stay motivated to keep handling the problems that come our way.

An effective way to provide this encouragement is to establish an internal dialogue with yourself. When you do something right, you can make statements inside your mind like “that was good” or “I did a good thing” or “Hell, yeah!”

How many people do you have living inside that cranium of yours, pal?

Wyz_sub10

For this to make sense in the first place, the value of 'x' would have to be such that 3/x does = 0. (and the only valid number would be 0)

But this is not possible because you cannot divide by 0.

Therefore, 3/x does not equal zero to begin with, regardless of the value of 'x'.

Your example of 'flawed' algebraic rules is not a valid one because the premise is flawed.

That's like me saying 4/2 = 3, and then fiddling with the equation to produce an erroneous result. Not hard to do when my equation is erroneous to begin with.

Chiron

First: Anti-Materialist, your part about time not being linear has similarities to time dilation. Things like curved space and such fit into nicely. And I think that four is the generally accepted number of dimensions that really matter (read: have any appreciable, large-scale effect), not three.

Second (already addressed, but then I already wrote this): that algebra bit isn't relevant. I mean, sure, if you put a bad equation in, you're gonna get bad results out (garbage in, garbage out; also remember that you have to set limits/constraints in real life: if you're trying to find the maximum space a box made out of an 8.5" x 11" sheet of paper can contain, you have to rule out negative side lengths, even though you could get infinite volume with them).

Third: the "something from nothing" (TANSTAAFL) problem fades if you take gravity to be the opposite of stuff (matter and antimatter). Positive energy is directed outwards; negative, inwards. Gravity is always the negative kind, unlike, say, electromagnetism, whose polarity depends on the situation (A Brief History of Time addresses this... well, briefly.)

Fourth and finally: yguy, that last post of yours makes it sound like you believe inner dialogue to be evidence of split personalities. Are you able to think without using language, merely having sensations and memories? Though, come to think of it, there's not much difference between imagined sounds and imagined images.
Less tangentially, the quote you were indirectly (and fallaciously) attacking seems not at all outlandish to me: it is positive reinforcement at its most basic level, and something that several people I know could certainly use. It's sort of like the "raining after I wax my car" sensation: some people only remember the bad things they did, and don't take enough pleasure from a job well done.

-Chiron

Anti-Materialist

Yes, my algebraic example was bad math...


That was my point - it was supposed to be bad math. It only works if you start with an erroneous assumption.



Creating a mathematically consistent system in which you get something from nothing still starts with the assumption that you can, in fact, get something from nothing.


That assumption takes far more faith than I have.


I would say this - all we know is our direct experience. The best we can do in life is learn how to sort the data we get from our direct experience in such a way as to produce the most enjoyable possible interaction with the world around us, and thus to produce the greatest joy we can get out of life.


We cannot assume that the world is real. I don't. Neither do I assume that it is false. I simply act in the way that gets the best results.


You guys who believe that the big bang caused itself are taking a leap of faith that I would never do. Make no assumptions - if you are diligent enough, you can still contruct a workable approach to life without making them.


Peace,

JL

yguy

You're missing the point. You think it makes sense to talk to yourself?

The fallacy here is the idea that people can motivate themselves. They can't, any more than rocks can move themselves.

Wyz_sub10

Theists do it all the time - they call the voice 'god'. What's the difference?



Why is this a fallacy? What on earth does self-motivation have to do with moving rocks?

If you cannot motivate yourself, that is your business. But I would not project that on to everyone around you.

Anti-Materialist

Oh nonesense.

It doesn't matter whether the internal dialogue you take with yourself is in the form of words, or feelings. What matters is that you have that internal dialogue. I find that words are useful, because they help me formulate my thoughts in a more precise fashion.

Have you gone through life disciplining yourself to never ever talk to yourself? That is just horrible! I talk to myself all the time - for different reasons. Sometimes I have practice conversations inside my head, to model how I think an important conversation will turn out with someone. This is very useful, it enables me to figure out the best approach to business meetings and the like.

Sometimes I comment to myself "that sucked" or "oops" or"YES!".

I assure you that I am perfectly sane, despite having a rich internal life. It's when you start hearing voices that answer your internal dialogue, that you have to start worrying


Also, regarding motivation - you are just wrong wrong wrong. How do you manage to accomplish anything? Where do you find your motivation, if not from within?

People can motivate themselves. We all do. We absolutely must find our motivations for living life to its fullest within ourselves. Being true to yourself is one of the most fundamental concepts in living a healthy life.


I am motivated to create good things in the world because it satisfies that part of myself that appreciates beauty.


When you say you don't believe in self-motivation, it just makes me sad. It makes me want to give you a great big warm fuzzy hug, and tell you that it's all going to be all right, just keep fighting.

Do you need a hug?

Is your posting just a subconscious effort towards reaching your hug quota for the week? It's allright, if that is what it is, you know.


Heh...

Maybe I am being obnoxious.

Anti-Materialist

ooops - sorry - that last post was meant to follow right after Yguy, not Wyz - sorry about that.