Re: Russell's "Theory of Nothing" and time.

From: Günther Greindl <guenther.greindl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:43:08 +0100

Hi,

> There is a real existing "nothing" and there is a concept nonexistence
> and they should never be confused. The real nothing is common,
> "nothing in the refrigerator", a white canvas, empty space (the ideal
> or direction toward i.e., expansion). The real nothing is simply
> balance, uniformity, perfect symmetry.

Hmm - your real existing nothing is just a word without referent - like
a null pointer.
Q: "What is on the paper?"

As answer you expect that what is written.
As the paper is still blank:
A: "Nothing."

You are being returned a null pointer, not a metaphysical reference to
balance, uniformity, symmetry or whatever.

Your concept of _nonexistence_ would then be a metaphysical null
pointer. Attributing either concept some kind of "existence" is major
metaphysical error IMHO.

> It isn't a cancellation of
> properties or existence, it is a unification or synthesis into a
> single form, which we see as nothing. Cook everything in the frig
> together and you end up with one thing with far fewer properties. That
> property-less "one" in mathematics is zero.

These are all features of language. I recommend Niiniluoto's "Critical
Scientific Realism" how to resolve these issues - indeed, how they have
been resolved through diligent work of many philosophers (that does not
mean that there is no disagreement anymore ;-))

> converging toward an infinitely small value. What we are doing is
> fragmenting zero, we are slicing it up into parts, and since our
<snip>

You seem to have a certain preconception of what a number is; or at
least develop a conception which one must not naturally share.


> high symmetry internally while relative to zero they are perfect
> asymmetry) and time evolves towards a whole other kind of order
> (unity, balance, perfect symmetry) which is actually the infinite

I suppose you do not mean the heat death of the universe. But what would
perfect symmetry be but heat death?

Regards,
Günther


-- 
Günther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna
guenther.greindl.domain.name.hidden
http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/
Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Jan 09 2008 - 09:47:24 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST