It's all a mystery really.....

Originally posted by knightmeister
So , even though existence itself may forever be inexplicable to science , you still do not accept it as a mystery?

Surely the very definition of a mystery is that it cannot be explained. Maybe for you it is too much of an emotive word? Or suggestive of other ideas?

I don't know. All I know is that the interesting thing about existence is not t course is that there is no answer.

Please do tell me you have thought this through.

…So , even though existence itself may forever be inexplicable to science ...…

What is your premise for believing that there is something inexplicable there?

Definition of inexplicable:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inexplicable

“Difficult or impossible to explain or account for.” (my emphasis)

What if there is nothing to explain or account for?
-I mean, would it still be “inexplicable”? 😛

….Surely the very definition of a mystery is that it cannot be explained.
….

-even in a context where there is nothing to explain?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mystery

“ ONE that is not fully understood or that baffles or eludes the understanding” (my emphasis)

What if there is no “ONE” or anything there to understand?
-I mean, would it still be a “mystery”? 😛

….The moment you say "...and the reason why existence exists is......" .…

You assume a lot; why would I irrationally believe that “existence” has a “reason”? -there is no premise for such a peculiar belief and I have no such belief.

….It's a line that cannot be crossed. Science simply cannot win. ..…

What if there is no “line to cross” thus nothing here for “science to win”?

Originally posted by knightmeister
For example , one might say that the universe randomly "emerged" as a result of quantum fluctuations or some other theory. One could even go into great detail about "how" this worked. But even with a million years of detailled explanation the question would no doubt remain "why the quantum fluctuations anyway?" OR "how did this state of affairs exist?"

I think we are generally in agreement. My point though is that I personally don't think that focusing on the beginning(if there is one) is helpful. There are certain basic laws that the universe follows which I suppose must be brute facts. It may turn out that it is only one basic law or a very large quantity of them. But all phenomena past present and future runs according to those brute facts. My point about causal chains is that they are causing you to trace your observations backwards in time to try to find the original brute fact - my argument is that such tracing is invalid and unfounded. We do not know whether or not the current state of the universe is truly dependent on the past - it could just as easily be dependent on the future or simply be a brute fact in and of itself. A tough concept I know but one that cannot be easily dismissed.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I understand the distinction but to me it's not relevant because all three are ultimately mysterious and can offer no complete watertight explanation of existence.

Even God cannot offer this. His existence is inexplicable and unfathomable.

Why do you think that minor distinctions have any relevance to this? You can talk about brute facts , somet ...[text shortened]... u are instantly required to find another.

Do you know Goedel's incompleteness theorem?

Basically, I think you are being sloppy. I think your language is vague and plastic and I think you ride roughshod over substantive distinctions. But I am not interested in discussing that further. I would be interested in simplifying and clarifying this discussion.

First, I would like to clarify where I think we both substantively agree: we both agree that there probably exists at least some brute fact(s), right?

Now, beyond that I don't understand what you are trying to say with your 'mystery' talk. You say that the above realization fills you with feelings of mystery and awe and the like. Fair enough, but I am telling you (and I guess you will have to just take my word for it) that the same is not true of me (or at least I would not use any of those words when describing any attitudes I have toward the realization). I just think the proposition is true, and beyond that I'm not sure I have any strong affective attitudes or feelings toward the proposition. Now, are you saying that there is something defective about me because I do not share the same affective response toward the proposition as you? If so, I think you're being a bit ridiculous. I'll be more than happy to entertain your telling me that I ought to believe this or that based on argument or evidence; I'll also put up with your telling me that I should have different character and dispositional traits as it relates to action-guiding. But, sorry, I don't need you telling me what sort of "feelings" I should be having toward propositions of this nature. However, maybe if you could make me aware of any implications of the proposition that I haven't considered, then you could bring me into new attitudes.

Or am I misinterpreting what you are trying to say?

Do you know Goedel's incompleteness theorem?

I have some basic familiarity with it. Why?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think we are generally in agreement. My point though is that I personally don't think that focusing on the beginning(if there is one) is helpful. There are certain basic laws that the universe follows which I suppose must be brute facts. It may turn out that it is only one basic law or a very large quantity of them. But all phenomena past present and fu ...[text shortened]... a brute fact in and of itself. A tough concept I know but one that cannot be easily dismissed.

It's not really about time it's about causality. Whether we trace the ultimate origins of existence backwards or forwards ...whatever. The point is that it cannot be traced to anything explicable by rational thought or scientific explanation. It remains by definition outside the realm of science. We have little hope of understanding it. Therefore it is a mystery of sorts.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Basically, I think you are being sloppy. I think your language is vague and plastic and I think you ride roughshod over substantive distinctions. But I am not interested in discussing that further. I would be interested in simplifying and clarifying this discussion.

First, I would like to clarify where I think we both substantively agree: we both ...[text shortened]... Goedel's incompleteness theorem?

I have some basic familiarity with it. Why?[/b]

So how DO you feel about the prospect of existence being inexplicable in any rational scientific way? Do you just say to yourself - "ok , that's the way it is and we will never know why" . Doesn't it make you think or contemplate the nature of existence?

If , fundamentally , existence is inexplicable and beyond rational understanding then that has implications for the way we look at life and the world don't you think?

I re-state the obvious...

Existence (ie everything that exists including God) either popped out of nothing or was caused by something. If caused then we must ask what caused that ad infinitum. Whatever way you shake it it's going to be a mystery.

My language may be "sloppy" but it cuts through the BS to the essential point. I find your language to be overly complex and concerned with irrelevant details. You argue this and that without ever grasping the basic roots of the issue or seeing the big picture. You lose yourself in intellectual philosobabble.

I agree that there are brute facts about existence. Do you agree that these brute facts are inexplicable and cannot be fathomed?

Originally posted by knightmeister
So how DO you feel about the prospect of existence being inexplicable in any rational scientific way? Do you just say to yourself - "ok , that's the way it is and we will never know why" . Doesn't it make you think or contemplate the nature of existence?

If , fundamentally , existence is inexplicable and beyond rational understanding then that has existence. Do you agree that these brute facts are inexplicable and cannot be fathomed?

…I agree that there are brute facts about existence. Do you agree that these brute facts are inexplicable and cannot be fathomed..…

-but what is there to “fathom” here? -oh, don’t tell me, it is the mere fact that brute facts are facts that have no “explanation” (neither known or unknown explanation) by definition.

Ok -so why would that mere fact about “brute facts” be something “inexplicable” and cannot be “fathomed” while, at the same time, the mere fact that facts that are NOT “brute facts” DO have an “explanation” is NOT something “inexplicable” and cannot be “fathomed”?

-In other words, what is your justification for using one kind of “logic” when analysing “brute facts” while, at the same time, use a DIFFERENT kind of “logic” when analysing facts that are NOT “brute facts” ?
( I hope you would agree that you should be consistent with your logic? )

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I agree that there are brute facts about existence. Do you agree that these brute facts are inexplicable and cannot be fathomed..…

-but what is there to “fathom” here? -oh, don’t tell me, it is the mere fact that brute facts are facts that have no “explanation” (neither known or unknown explanation) by definition.

Ok -so why would that ...[text shortened]... e NOT “brute facts” ?
( I hope you would agree that you should be consistent with your logic? )[/b]

If a fact has an explanation then it is not inexplicable.

If a fact hasn't been explained yet (but looks as if it could be ) then it is something we don't yet understand. It's not a mystery as such because it's just not yet able to be explained in terms of some other fact.

A brute fact (or the brute facts of existence) cannot be explained with reference to anything else by definition. That's the inexplicable mystery that cannot be fathomed. Ever.

You are right to say there is nothing to fathom. The only thing we can do is contemplate it for the mystery that it is.

We either think there is a reason for existence to exist or we don't.

If there is a reason that existence exists then that reason requires an explanation and so on and so forth.

If there is no reason for existence to exist then we have an inexplicable mystery on our hands.

Either way there is no way out.

Do you think there is a reason existence exists? Would it have ever been possible for nothing at all to have existed ?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Therefore it is a mystery of sorts.

If to you 'mystery' simply means 'brute fact' or 'without cause' then fine. But to me it evokes other images. For a start evokes the image of 'unknown cause' which is incorrect.
Further I think you have a bigger problem with it than I do because I see every single quantum even as not having a known cause and find that to be the normal status quo and nothing particular spectacular. You on the other hand seem to find 'brute facts' quite unusual and hard to come to terms with.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…So , even though existence itself may forever be inexplicable to science ...…

What is your premise for believing that there is something inexplicable there?

Definition of inexplicable:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inexplicable

“Difficult or impossible to explain or account for.” (my emphasis)

What if there is nothing to e ...[text shortened]... win. ..…[/b]

What if there is no “line to cross” thus nothing here for “science to win”?[/b]

What is your premise for believing that there is something inexplicable there?----------------------------------------------------------------------------hammy----------------------------------------------------

Because the moment you say that you can explain existence itself that's the moment you are required to explain the explanation.

You either say that there is an explanation for existence or you say there isn't - either way there are big problems.

You could say that existence "came out of nothing" - but that would not tell us how - so it would still be inexplicable.

You could also say that the requirement to find an explanation is false - but that would just be admitting that it's impossible to explain anyway.

I think you haven't understood the very problem that existence places before us.

It's not really the problem of existence though - it's the problem of nothing. Nothing logically creates nothing or causes nothing - nothing happens. Something cannot happen with nothing.

Atheists have sought to find a way out of this conundrum by citing quantum particles "coming out of nothing" . The problem with this is that

a) the concept of a true vaccuum can be challenged scientifically and
b) any such events occur within the context of an already existing universe

Originally posted by knightmeister
If a fact has an explanation then it is not inexplicable.

If a fact hasn't been explained yet (but looks as if it could be ) then it is something we don't yet understand. It's not a mystery as such because it's just not yet able to be explained in terms of some other fact.

A brute fact (or the brute facts of existence) cannot be explained with on existence exists? Would it have ever been possible for nothing at all to have existed ?

…If a fact has an explanation then it is not inexplicable. ..…

If it has a known explanation -yes -it is not inexplicable.

….If a fact hasn't been explained yet (but looks as if it could be ) then it is something we don't yet understand. It's not a mystery as such because it's just not yet able to be explained in terms of some other fact.
….

Emmm, that is not quite the way most people would use the word “mystery” in everyday life.
I think most people would say it is currently an unsolved mystery but may be solved one day and thus may cease to be a mystery one day in the future.

….A brute fact (or the brute facts of existence) cannot be explained with reference to anything else by definition..…

Correct -because there is nothing there to “explain” by definition.

….That's the inexplicable mystery that cannot be fathomed. Ever. .…

No, because there is nothing to “explain” by definition!

…You are right to say there is nothing to fathom. The only thing we can do is contemplate it for the mystery that it is.

..…

Now this is the most critical question I want to ask you in this post that gets at the hart of what I see wrong with what you are saying especially as you didn’t answer the last two questions of my last post that gets at the hart of the same thing:

If there is nothing to fathom about a fact then why should the fact that there is nothing to fathom about that fact be regarded as a mystery!!!?

…. Do you think there is a reason existence exists? Would it have ever been possible for nothing at all to have existed ?
.…

I assume the answer to both these questions to be “no”.

Originally posted by knightmeister
What is your premise for believing that there is something inexplicable there?----------------------------------------------------------------------------hammy----------------------------------------------------

Because the moment you say that you can explain existence itself that's the moment you are required to explain the explanation.

You eit cally and
b) any such events occur within the context of an already existing universe

…You could say that existence "came out of nothing" ..…

-which I don’t because I wouldn’t have such a peculiar belief (this is coming back to your misunderstanding of the big bang theory)

….You could also say that the requirement to find an explanation is false - but that would just be admitting that it's impossible to explain anyway.
….

“find an explanation” for what?

“impossible to explain anyway” what?

If there is NOTHING there to “explain” then there is nothing to “explain anyway” nor “admit” that you cannot “explain anyway”.

-I think you are using circular reasoning here without realising it!

….It's not really the problem of existence though - it's the problem of nothing. Nothing logically creates nothing or causes nothing - nothing happens. Something cannot happen with nothing.
..…

Correct -and I wouldn’t have such a peculiar belief that something can come into existence by being “caused” by “nothing”.

….Atheists have sought to find a way out of this conundrum by citing quantum particles "coming out of nothing" ..…

No they didn’t! that is not an “atheist” argument.
And when a quantum scientist says that a quantum particle can "coming out of nothing", he is NOT implying that “nothing” can “cause” “something”!!!
-there is no “causality” implied here.

…The problem with this is that

a) the concept of a true vacuum can be challenged scientifically
..…

Who said that there MUST exist a “true vacuum”?

Do you actually know what you are talking about here? -I mean, do you actually know enough about quantum physics to know what the definition of a “true vacuum” ACTUALLY means?

http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/glossary/truevacuum.htm

-I think you are totally out of your depth here.

-and why is this a “problem” in respect to particles coming into existence within a vacuum? (as you clearly have suggested)

…. any such events occur within the context of an already existing universe
.…

Correct -so? Why is this a “problem” in respect to particles coming into existence within a vacuum? (as you clearly have suggested)

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's not really the problem of existence though - it's the problem of nothing. Nothing logically creates nothing or causes nothing - nothing happens. Something cannot happen with nothing.

That is not true. Can you present a logical argument or a physical law that proves your claim? Even if you could, it would still boil down to little more than a 'brute fact' just as 'mysterious' as something coming from nothing.
Existence must operate by a set of laws. What particular set of laws those are is essentially a 'brute fact' but although we may wonder why that set of laws is that particular set such wondering is little more than a sign that:
1. We are refusing to accept our previous conclusion that it was a brute fact.
2. We are imposing the law of causation on a brute fact when the law of causation is itself a result of the said brute fact we are trying to apply it to, and further the law of causation is not known to be universally applicable anyway, in fact there is precious little evidence that it applies to the vast majority of phenomena in the universe.

Existence must operate by a set of laws.


What is the legislator from which these laws came into existence ?

If you say that these laws just are then that is problematic. For then that contradicts your idea that existence must operate by a set of laws. The laws themselves seem not be be subject to any law.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]Existence must operate by a set of laws.


What is the legislator from which these laws came into existence ?

If you say that these laws just are then that is problematic. For then that contradicts your idea that existence must operate by a set of laws. The laws themselves seem not be be subject to any law.[/b]

…Existence must operate by a set of laws.

What is the legislator from which these laws came into existence ?
..…

if you are talking about those laws of physics that are NOT brute facts, then those laws are logically deducible from higher more general laws of physics -so no “legislator” required there (unless you want to use a non-standard and more general meaning of the word “legislator” that does NOT necessarily imply a person -nothing wrong with doing that as long as you make it clear that that is what you are doing).

if you are talking about those laws of physics that ARE brute facts, then those laws, by definition of “brute facts”, are NOT so for a “reason” thus it would be a logical contradiction so suggest that they are so because a “legislator” made them so because if a “legislator” made them so then that would be a “reason” why they are so!!!

So which are you referring to? -those laws that are brute facts or those that are not?

…The laws themselves seem not be be subject to any law..….

Correct -that must logically be true for all the highest physical laws -and there is no “logical contradiction” there because those highest physical laws are just brute facts.

Just as a matter of interest, I found this link that defines “brute fact“:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact

There are actually two possible meanings to this term but the one being used in this thread is:

“…The more common but less technical definition of brute fact is
"a terminus of a series of explanations which is not itself further explicable“….”