Message info
 
To:Everything List From:Craig Weinberg Subject:Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? Date:Mon, 7 May 2012 14:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
 

On May 7, 3:44pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't issue
> >> contradictory statements.
> > You have to have logic to begin with to conceive of the desirability
> > of avoiding contradiction. Something has to put the 'contra' into our
> > 'diction'.
>
> No, you only need to understand negation, to have a language with the word 'not'. Then if
> someone says to you "X" and "not-X" you immediately realize the need to avoid
> contradiction, because a contradiction fails to express anything.

"You immediately realize" = logic. A baby doesn't immediately realize
that there is a need to avoid contradiction, even though they may
understand bottle and not-bottle. An insane person or just irrational
person may not care about avoiding contradiction even though they
understand negation. Any anticipation of an outcome which results in a
modification of one's intention is a form of logic. If I avoid
something for a reason, I am using logic.

>
>
>
> > The 'laws' of quantum mechanics also follow from simple
> >> assumptions about the world having symmetries (c.f. Russell Standish's "Theory of Nothing"
> >> and Vic Stenger's "The Comprehensible Cosmos") and having a symmetry is a kind of
> >> 'nothing', i.e. having no distinguishing characteristic under some transformation.
> > Invariance is one aspect of symmetry,
>
> It's an essential aspect. A symmetry is a property that is invariant under some
> transformation.

All properties are invariant under some transformation, that's what
makes them a property. Symmetry is a very specific sense of combined
variance, invariance, but most of all a sense of conjugation by
opposition.

>
> > but you cannot reduce symmetry
> > to being a 'kind of nothing'. Symmetry cannot be anything less than a
> > feature of sense.
>
> I can if I explicitly say what kind it is - which I did.

Your reduction reduces symmetry to be no different from asymmetry.
Asymmetry is invariant under some transformation also. You have only
made the word symmetry meaningless.

Craig

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.