BothAndBlog Forum

POLL: What seems more far-fetched (1) something from literally nothing (2) an infinite past?


What seems more far-fetched (1) something from literally nothing (2) an infinite past? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Since we are only familiar with being, non-existence is counter-intuitive. So, it's easier for us to imagine NOW extending into the Past and Future with no boundaries. But intuition tends to be prejudiced by personal experience.

The ancient Greeks were excellent mathematicians, but they had no concept of "Zero" (nothingness). Yet in more recent times, that non-intuitive notion has proven to be quite useful in abstract mathematics. Consequently, as hypothetical philosophical postulations, we are now more comfortable with such literal non-sense, even though it has no counterpart in physical Reality. That's why "Zero" and "Infinity" are meta-physical philosophical speculations, not physical scientific facts. And philosophical thinkers have been known to fetch some of their most exotic ideas from afar-far-away.

Other than our intuition, what's to say actual no-thingness didn't give rise to everything else? Bear in mind, something having an infinite past is absurd too. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Such distractions about abstractions can go-on into the infinity before infinity -- if we don't put up an arbitrary barrier to eternal extrapolation. One way to do that is to narrowly define the subject of discussion. So, what is this "no-thing-ness" we are imagining for the sake of argument? Typically, the term refers to the concept of a vacuum or absence of physical objects. But we humans tend to think of imaginary non-physical concepts as-if they are things. Does Absence count?

Should we include ethereal Feelings and Qualia in the category of things-in-absentia? The "Future" does not exist in any physical sense, but we speak & act as-if it's a real thing. Plato insisted that his abstract Forms "gave rise" to concrete Reality, even though they were merely abstract designs for potential things. As mentioned above, the notion of "Zero" seemed absurd to the Greek philosophers. Yet today, we use those "far-fetched" symbols of nothingness (00000) as-if they are countable objects.

So, perhaps we need to distinguish between actual physical "things" and imaginary metaphorical "things", in order to abbreviate this thread. Does "Absence" exist in any meaningful sense? If not, this may be merely an excursion into mundane somethingness. If so, we may be talking about "Constitutive Absence".

Absence :
It’s more like Gravity and Strange Attractors of Physics that “pull” stuff toward them. It is in effect a Teleological Attractor. How that “spooky action at a distance” works may be best explained by Terrence Deacon’s definition of “Absence”.
Re : Terrence Deacon : Incomplete Nature, How Mind Emerged From Matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

Absential : The paradoxical intrinsic property of existing with respect to something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent. Although this property is irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things, it is a defining property of life and mind; elsewhere (Deacon 2005) described as a constitutive absence
Constitutive absence : A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
http://absence.github.io/3-explanations ... ntial.html