Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I'm not sure what the difference between 'nothing' and 'absolute nothing' is, maybe you can enlighten me.

I just meant absolutely nothing, including time-space dimensionality—i.e. not just empty space “somewhere.”

For now, I only admit metaphysics as (sometimes quite enjoyable and aesthetic) speculation about what we really can’t kno ...[text shortened]... Even a nontheist metaphysician could be guilty of a kind of “god of the gaps” thinking....)[/b]

Again, spot on.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Essentially, but one that has swallowed everything that currently exists in the universe.

So, this singularity would be the one that started the universe?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Good, finally got back to this one!

Okay KM assumes that the Universe is a finite thing - a lump of something, if you will. It is not. The universe is the totality of all things. You cannot say that the universe was created in the same way that a brick is made.

The universe is infinite in that it doesn't have any known edge - there is nothing b in the sense that there is nothing outside of it -it curves round on itself, so to speak too.

But the material inside the universe is finite?
edit: as in there is only so much of it?

Originally posted by Bad wolf
So, this singularity would be the one that started the universe?

Started is a bad term to use. Essentially, however, yes.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
But the material inside the universe is finite?

As far as we know.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Good, finally got back to this one!

Okay KM assumes that the Universe is a finite thing - a lump of something, if you will. It is not. The universe is the totality of all things. You cannot say that the universe was created in the same way that a brick is made.

The universe is infinite in that it doesn't have any known edge - there is nothing b ...[text shortened]... in the sense that there is nothing outside of it -it curves round on itself, so to speak too.

Yes. And the philosophical problem is partly a tendency to treat “the universe” (or cosmos, to cover multiverses), not as the totality, but as an “itself” in itself—rather like a jar containing bugs (i.e. everything “inside” the cosmos).

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Started is a bad term to use. Essentially, however, yes.

If not started then what?

p.s. Damn English language! 😠

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t know how to talk about “absolute nothing” (including dimensionality; even “empty space” has dimensionality). We always seem to talk about nothingness as if it was a “queer kind of something,” as some philosopher put it. In fact, I’m not convinced that it isn’t nonsensical to talk about that kind of metaphysical nothingness.

Not getting involved but I absolutely agree with this, and think it is very well expressed.

The interesting - and philosophically dangerous - thing is our nagging belief that we can somehow think and talk meaningfully about such things.

Originally posted by dottewell
Not getting involved but I absolutely agree with this, and think it is very well expressed.

The interesting - and philosophically dangerous - thing is our nagging belief that we can somehow think and talk meaningfully about such things.

Well, coming from my Wittgenstein "guru," I'll take that as a good grade... 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, coming from my Wittgenstein "guru," I'll take that as a good grade... 🙂

I was idly trying to source the "queer kind of something", which sounds awfully Wittgensteinian...

The nearest I could think of was LW on "mental objects" in the Philosophical Investigations - "Not a nothing, but not a something either!"

Originally posted by Bad wolf
If not started then what?

p.s. Damn English language! 😠

Good question.

Unfortunately, I don't think "started" is the right word, since time wouldn't exist within a singularity...

Originally posted by dottewell
I was idly trying to source the "queer kind of something", which sounds awfully Wittgensteinian...

The nearest I could think of was LW on "mental objects" in the Philosophical Investigations - "Not a nothing, but not a something either!"

I think it might've been G.E. Moore?

Originally posted by vistesd
I think it might've been G.E. Moore?

That would make sense too.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I'm not sure what the difference between 'nothing' and 'absolute nothing' is, maybe you can enlighten me.

I just meant absolutely nothing, including time-space dimensionality—i.e. not just empty space “somewhere.”

For now, I only admit metaphysics as (sometimes quite enjoyable and aesthetic) speculation about what we really can’t kno ...[text shortened]... Even a nontheist metaphysician could be guilty of a kind of “god of the gaps” thinking....)[/b]

It is still fuzzy thinking in my opinion, simply because there is a reference point means we have a before, during, and after. To dismiss one isn't logical, to say we have no guesses or theories about all points before the event would be an honest statement, not it isn't real. You may as well say we know we have a cube, but it only has two dimensions to it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is still fuzzy thinking in my opinion, simply because there is a reference point means we have a before, during, and after. To dismiss one isn't logical, to say we have no guesses or theories about all points before the event would be an honest statement, not it isn't real. You may as well say we know we have a cube, but it only has two dimensions to it.
Kelly

Your "point" only makes sense if the laws of physics are invariant around that event. Time didn't exist "before" the big bang. There was no before. It doesn't exist. To talk about before the big bang is just stupid, like talking about the smell of blue.