@Wittgensteinism Oh wow.... commenting on his looks when he's clearly a voice.
I like what he has to say. . he has the art of word expression and doesn't force you to believe what he says. all you're doing is saying words that are generic, meaningless nothings. At least jeffsmithluedke has insightful, creative things to say, that keep some people inspired. That's beautiful.
@btytrthfrdmlv "commenting on his looks when he's clearly a voice."
Hm.. curious comment, seeing as how he's clearly more than a voice. Dunno if your video screen is broke, but i can actually SEE what he looks like.
"he has the art of word expression"
lmfao
And obviously you don't. Besides, what he says is trite and thoroughly misguided. He's all style (equally unimpressive as his "looks") and no substance.
I'm glad you're inspired by him. I think that says a lot about you..
I've always been saying why questions imply intention, glad to see someone who seems to agree with me. It seems why can often be substituted out for "how", its like one question (the why) is asking for a justification as well, while "how" questions only want explanation.
Why assumes who? Are you kidding me? Asking, "why are there seasons?" does NOT assume a who. It really doesn't assume anything. Maybe there's an answer maybe there isn't an answer but if that question wasn't asked we wouldn't have discovered the Earth goes around the sun. If that's the level of your thinking it's pretty damn poor.
@stretmediq however, for the natural questions like why are there seasons, can be easily be replaced with how are there seasons. The first question is simply asking the mechanics of climate. but asking why a child ate the cookie is very different from asking him/ her how the child ate the cookie.
@renaudldw88 Really? So if a kid asks his dad, "why is it cold in the winter?" his father should correct him and say, "no, Billy it's HOW is it cold in the winter?"
@stretmediq Yes. If the question to the "why" is because of the region getting less sun due to the tilt in earth's axis, so would the "how". I'm not saying that it is incorrect to use "why", but rather "how" and "why" is interchangeable in this case IMO.
@stretmediq in the case of the seasons, it's not really a why. It should probably be "how come". "Why", in its classic sense asks not for a cause, but for a reason, and a reason implies choice and agency. "Why" and "how come" can often be used interchangeably, but they are very different.
So if I ask, "Why do I have a big cock," does that imply the existence of a who, that has reason to create big cocks? God, I just wanna know why - is that so much to ask?!
I mean, if natural selection gave me my big cock - that's fine, I just wanna know who I should thank.
It seems to me that the response should be "why does there have to be a 'why'" - and thus an implied 'who' - rather than letting that assumption go unchallenged.
@2bsirius of course this depends on whether we're talking about who-cookies or why-cookies. if i were to cook a who-cookie, i could have crumbs on my face as long as other cook-me-nots didn't cook why-cookies.
This heideggerian question is, from an existential point of view, never gonna be answered satisfyingly, and because of this nor is it gonna be answered logically. The answer of the 'why' lacks an appeal that a follow up 'why' will elicit, and so on ad infinitum. This is where the absurdity comes in. Trying to answer this question logically is an existential forgetfullness. Either you do it Camus' way and refuse to want an answer or you make a kierkegaardian leap of faith. Or something in between
I think I agree with your assessment of the word "why" but for some reason when I think "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I just mean "for what reason." However, when I think about possible for answers for it, I don't feel like the question is satisfied unless it is answered in terms of something unique to human perception like meaning or pleasure.
friend of mine in college took a philosophy class. the very last question on the last exam she ever took was "Why". everyone filled out these Long answers trying to explain "why"... my friend just wrote "Why not."
@jericomovie You mean HOW does the question always imply a who? ;) That's just the trend in ordinary language. Some people ask why synonymously with how, just as you did, but the reason any answer an atheist gives to the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" won't be satisfactory to the theist is precisely because it doesn't offer a who. It doesn't answer the question of motivation. In that *particular* why question, the answer is whomever the person asking wants it to be.
Surely the only worthy answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" must be ... (with an exaggerated shrug of the shoulders) ... "Why not?".
Took me a moment to get what the fuck you were saying, but eventually I got it. And it completely makes sense.
And here is a sidenote: You seem kinda sad...or bored. Since I don't personally know you, its harder to read your emotion... Maybe you should go eat a cookie! :-)
@Mitzpatrick That's because atheism isn't believing in nothing. It's disbelief of gods. Lack of belief. There is no positive claim of belief being made. When Christians/Muslims/Theist says "There is a god", Atheists say "There isn't enough evidence to support that claim, therefore I cannot believe it." or something similar. Unless you are talking about strong atheism or gnostic atheism which isn't the norm.
@bcFiRe12 Yes... I understand your point of view, however... I may have left out quite a bit in my response, as I was referencing to the paradoxical suggestion of "something created from nothing" expressed here in this video. It seems to be a common staple in atheistic "logic", often referenced by M Theory or Quantum Theory but I there is no concrete evidence of something created from nothing or even that there ever was a "nothing"... but we can follow the rabbit down that hole forever.
@Mitzpatrick No, atheism does not say "something created from nothing." Exactly right with your rabbit down the hole forever. I suppose it is possible that the universe cycles through Big Bang/Big Crunch in time (meaning that the energy and matter would never be lost or created), but I doubt humans will ever know. My point is, I have never heard someone argue that something came from nothing. M Theory and Quantum Theory are not atheist dogmas. I do not know enough about them to comment.
Here's one: WHY did I just sub to the same azrienoch bulljive under a channel with a less awesome name than azrienoch? If this channel turns out to be even better than azrienoch, I shall sue you.
@ReesesMonkeyXP Well, I'm all ears. I'd love an example of "Why?" not implying a who when used correctly. And by correctly, I mean that it isn't "How?" masquerading as "Why?"
@ReesesMonkeyXP I agree. I do not see how you went from something to someone. Not everything has a person or thinking being behind it. That seems like a theistic claim.
@bcFiRe12 But every motivation does. Every intention and purpose does. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" asks for exactly these things. You can say there is no purpose, intention, or motivation, and that's fine. It's like saying there is no why. I think that's a fine response. It shows you aren't willing to play the game. But you can't at the same time pretend it's an answer. It's a dismissal.
@ReesesMonkeyXP It implies a who because that's how "why" works in ordinary language. The "why" of philosophy comes from the "why" of ordinary language, and if you forget that, it'll lead you down the very line of reasoning you're on now. If there is no who, then there is no why, just a how. Like I said, give me a counter example in ordinary language and I'll gladly change my stance.
@ReesesMonkeyXP There's a number of ways you could do it, depending on what you're asking. How did the universe come to be when, if it had to do it all over again, it's extremely unlikely to become at all? How did everything get just perfect enough to get me where I am now? And so on. But if you're asking about purpose, you'll end up with a why question and therefore a who on the other side. Now, as an atheist, you don't necessarily need God to be the who of purpose, but it'll be someone.
@azrienoch I agree that saying that there is no motivation is a dismall. As an athiest, I believe in no god to ask 'why did you do this?'. But I still have the question 'why does existence exist?' because it seems that the universe could have just as easily not existed.
There is no why, who or what. It is, a description. I can describe the something, I can describe the nothing. To ask a rock why? is to project humanity onto the rock. There is no why with a rock, it simply is...a rock...a description.
I'm going to buy your book now...as soon as I find enough pennies, nickels...on the street. I am trying to develop patience. It is a sneaky question, thanks for the insight.
Reality is collapsed possibility. From a state of infinite, or near infinite possibility reality forms and crystallizes. Possibility decreases until "now." Now is that state of absolute limited possibility. That is, all things "now" can only be as they are in "now." To ask the question "why" is to assume some other possibility, but that possibility is excluded by the reality that reality is reality.
@dospook because "I" made it blue. Lovely questions...why...I'll be looking for a who now. I've not seen any new videos...or did you block me? Or is youtube blocking me. Or did I shut my eyes again.
@jpl10380 Do you often answer a question with a question. Is the concept of nothingness coherent? The absence of anything. Can you conceptualise it? Anyway, you question is a sub question of mine. You answer mine first :-D
@Mjhavok "Do you often answer a question with a question[?]." Sometimes.
"Is the concept of nothingness coherent?" Yes.
"The absence of anything. Can you conceptualize it?" No, because to conceptualize presupposed a conceiver. The possibility is without meaning. The reason the question doesn't work is because it's postulating alternatives to a situation which has none. There is no possibility for there to be nothing because there is something.
@Mjhavok Again, every question can be responded to appropriately and coherently, without resorting to nonsense. And again, it may not be an actual answer, like we both said. An appropriate response to your question, "Why do you beat your wife?" is "I don't," even though that's not an answer to the question.
@azrienoch dubstep is some good stuff, i've mainly been studying jazz theory lately. I'm going to be working with a musician friend of mine soon to produce an ep of some wonky jazzy electronic stuff. Really been getting into artists like Dorian Concept, dimlite and Flying Lotus lately. Part of production/recording practice in setting up a studio is finding the comb filters in a room so that they don't interfere with the recording. You should upload some of your dubstep :)
The "Why is there something rather than nothing?" question. I think I have to conclude it is a somewhat illegitimate question even if I understand the temptation to ask it. The problem with the "something from nothing" question as I see it is that it usually presupposes that "nothing" is the normal or first state or even a coherent concept.
@Mjhavok We know there is something but we don't know that there was ever nothing and having watched Lawrence Kraus' talk online at the Atheist Alliance International conference there seems to be good reasons from physics to suggest that there is always something, even if that something is just virtual quantum perturbations in the vacuum of space.
@Mjhavok I think that nothing (truly nothing) is an incoherent concept outside of mathematics. So I usually treat the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" the same way I treat questions like "What is the taste of blue words?”
So when asked "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I usually say I have no reason or evidence to suppose that nothing is a viable option.
@Mjhavok Well, Mj, my problem with dismissing the question like that is that it dismisses the wrong question. I mean, you're still arguing the "How?" not the "Why?" when you say that nothingness as incoherent. As in, "Wanna know how there's something rather than nothing? There's no such thing as nothing. That's how."
@Mjhavok Yes it does, it just might not be a very good answer. And I don't mean that the answer would have to be a completely nonsensical nonsequitur, I mean that there will always be a contextually appropriate answer even if it doesn't do a very good job of answering. Try it, it's a fun game.
@azrienoch You can give an answer to any question but it won't neccessarily be the correct answer. I guess by answer what I mean as something coherent. I mean you could ask me anything and I could respond by saying penut butter jelly time. This doesn't make my answer coherent, appropriate or meaningful. Some questions are illegitimate and some are logically absurd. Why do you beat your wife?
You have some proficiency with video graphics and you use YouTube. The opposiete of a luddite I would say. To be officially crowned a luddite you have to trash an Apple store. :-D
It's simple; "Why" is a causal question and there are two ways of asking it.
1 Why as the cause
2 Why as the effect
The former is the scientific form; the "How" question i.e. Why does Man exist? The "Why" here is "how did man come to exist; what Caused man?"
The latter is typically the teleological; the theistic form i.e. Why does Man exist; for what Future effect does man exist FOR?
The latter necessarily implies a premeditated effect of Man's existence, to which he would be beholden to
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
wow.. found this video in a link..
You look like shit
It must be systemic of your misguided (shitty) ideology
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
@Wittgensteinism Oh wow.... commenting on his looks when he's clearly a voice.
I like what he has to say. . he has the art of word expression and doesn't force you to believe what he says. all you're doing is saying words that are generic, meaningless nothings. At least jeffsmithluedke has insightful, creative things to say, that keep some people inspired. That's beautiful.
btytrthfrdmlv 1 year ago
@btytrthfrdmlv "commenting on his looks when he's clearly a voice."
Hm.. curious comment, seeing as how he's clearly more than a voice. Dunno if your video screen is broke, but i can actually SEE what he looks like.
"he has the art of word expression"
lmfao
And obviously you don't. Besides, what he says is trite and thoroughly misguided. He's all style (equally unimpressive as his "looks") and no substance.
I'm glad you're inspired by him. I think that says a lot about you..
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
Ah, philosophy is just like whacking off, gives you something to do and you enjoy yourself while you do it, but all the while it gets you no where!
AzrienochAntithesis 1 year ago
Why did i go out and get a cookie after this video.
PandaMC1 1 year ago
I've always been saying why questions imply intention, glad to see someone who seems to agree with me. It seems why can often be substituted out for "how", its like one question (the why) is asking for a justification as well, while "how" questions only want explanation.
fauyd 1 year ago
Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla
LilFaerl 1 year ago
Why assumes who? Are you kidding me? Asking, "why are there seasons?" does NOT assume a who. It really doesn't assume anything. Maybe there's an answer maybe there isn't an answer but if that question wasn't asked we wouldn't have discovered the Earth goes around the sun. If that's the level of your thinking it's pretty damn poor.
stretmediq 1 year ago
@stretmediq however, for the natural questions like why are there seasons, can be easily be replaced with how are there seasons. The first question is simply asking the mechanics of climate. but asking why a child ate the cookie is very different from asking him/ her how the child ate the cookie.
renaudldw88 1 year ago
@renaudldw88 Really? So if a kid asks his dad, "why is it cold in the winter?" his father should correct him and say, "no, Billy it's HOW is it cold in the winter?"
stretmediq 1 year ago
@stretmediq Yes. If the question to the "why" is because of the region getting less sun due to the tilt in earth's axis, so would the "how". I'm not saying that it is incorrect to use "why", but rather "how" and "why" is interchangeable in this case IMO.
renaudldw88 1 year ago
@renaudldw88 Yes I agree with that.
stretmediq 1 year ago
@renaudldw88 Yeah, the "why" seems to be a metaphor for how in this case. Let me know what you think about that.
ExistentialExistent 1 year ago
@stretmediq in the case of the seasons, it's not really a why. It should probably be "how come". "Why", in its classic sense asks not for a cause, but for a reason, and a reason implies choice and agency. "Why" and "how come" can often be used interchangeably, but they are very different.
Brandt761 1 year ago
"Am I luddite?" asks the man talking out my chattering little computerbox : D ROFLMAOSUB
TheOuroborosWyrm 1 year ago
I think that's dead on.
mu5icaddict2 1 year ago
Visine man. Visine.
ReverendAtomSmasher 1 year ago
So if I ask, "Why do I have a big cock," does that imply the existence of a who, that has reason to create big cocks? God, I just wanna know why - is that so much to ask?!
I mean, if natural selection gave me my big cock - that's fine, I just wanna know who I should thank.
theDracoIX 1 year ago
Horton Hears A Who is one of my all time favorite rhyming books.
earflakes 1 year ago
You look ill.
Random and unhelpful comment yes, but true.
steffcrombie 1 year ago
It seems to me that the response should be "why does there have to be a 'why'" - and thus an implied 'who' - rather than letting that assumption go unchallenged.
endergt 1 year ago
So the real question should be:
"WHY is God eating all the cookies?" Right?
I would just add the obvious follow up question:
WHY doesn't God realize that s/he is ignoring all the starving people who could use those cookies?
Might have gotten this wrong. I don't know.
2bsirius 1 year ago
@2bsirius Why is on second, Who is on first. & i'll gladly pay you Tueday for a cookie today.
Sherwulff 1 year ago
@Sherwulff
So you're God?
Great, answer this:
Why there are some cookies rather than no cookies?
Oh and why do you have crumbs on your face?
2bsirius 1 year ago
@2bsirius of course this depends on whether we're talking about who-cookies or why-cookies. if i were to cook a who-cookie, i could have crumbs on my face as long as other cook-me-nots didn't cook why-cookies.
Sherwulff 1 year ago
@Sherwulff
Just one more question. I don't get to talk to someone as important as you very often:
Is it possible for you to a bake a cookie so large that you can't lift it much less eat it?
2bsirius 1 year ago
@2bsirius i can do all of this, and more. i can even turn you into a pillar of cookie dough if you yaw too errantly from the righteous path.
Sherwulff 1 year ago
This heideggerian question is, from an existential point of view, never gonna be answered satisfyingly, and because of this nor is it gonna be answered logically. The answer of the 'why' lacks an appeal that a follow up 'why' will elicit, and so on ad infinitum. This is where the absurdity comes in. Trying to answer this question logically is an existential forgetfullness. Either you do it Camus' way and refuse to want an answer or you make a kierkegaardian leap of faith. Or something in between
Samanmotlagh 1 year ago
I think I agree with your assessment of the word "why" but for some reason when I think "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I just mean "for what reason." However, when I think about possible for answers for it, I don't feel like the question is satisfied unless it is answered in terms of something unique to human perception like meaning or pleasure.
LanceDirk 1 year ago
@LanceDirk For example: "Why is the sky blue" doesn't to me imply a who. It's like "what causes the sky to be blue?"
LanceDirk 1 year ago
you dont make enough of these vids anymore...
Poisonfrogg 1 year ago
The cookie jar was empty :P
uncertaintyprinciple 1 year ago
yeah, kids do like them cookies
Sherwulff 1 year ago
unknown strangers and cookie jars hold no answers, but self fulfilling opinions
axisapex 1 year ago
Didn't Budweiser defeat this argument with their Bud Dry beer?
AnneOnAMoose 1 year ago
friend of mine in college took a philosophy class. the very last question on the last exam she ever took was "Why". everyone filled out these Long answers trying to explain "why"... my friend just wrote "Why not."
A+ !!!! she was the only one who got it right. :)
oldhacks 1 year ago
my answer right now, which is subject 2 change, depending on future circumstances.
If you think you know there's really no talking to you, now.
If you think you don't know you're probably not ready to know.
There's only one way to find out.
For the believer it requires them to take part in the biggest conspiracy ever or it won't matter.
For the non-believe it won't matter or it could be a delightful surprise that will make them blush.
marniespeaks 1 year ago
the best I've come up with is the who is a dot and a dot's a dot's a dot
.
marniespeaks 1 year ago
Hi Jeff. Help me out.
Why must must the question 'why' always imply a 'who'?
And, for that matter, what is the 'who' of that particular 'why' question?
jericomovie 1 year ago
@jericomovie You mean HOW does the question always imply a who? ;) That's just the trend in ordinary language. Some people ask why synonymously with how, just as you did, but the reason any answer an atheist gives to the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" won't be satisfactory to the theist is precisely because it doesn't offer a who. It doesn't answer the question of motivation. In that *particular* why question, the answer is whomever the person asking wants it to be.
azrienoch 1 year ago
@azrienoch
You can say that people misuse "how" for "why," but can you demonstrate the difference?
jericomovie 1 year ago
Theist: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Atheist: It just is!
T: Your being silly!
A: Then you're as silly!
T: What do you mean?
A: Your God, You believe he is real?
T: Of course!
A: Then you too believe the answer is "it just is". Cause being real require you to be something.
Censeo 1 year ago
Is there really a flow chart? or were you kidding? lol =) I've got to see that!
michelle2chat 1 year ago
Surely the only worthy answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" must be ... (with an exaggerated shrug of the shoulders) ... "Why not?".
Have fun with that. =P
CaptainFrantic 1 year ago
Took me a moment to get what the fuck you were saying, but eventually I got it. And it completely makes sense.
And here is a sidenote: You seem kinda sad...or bored. Since I don't personally know you, its harder to read your emotion... Maybe you should go eat a cookie! :-)
abidebythecurse 1 year ago
Atheism confuses me... the simple fact that one must "believe in nothing" is a theistic view unto itself.
Mitzpatrick 1 year ago
@Mitzpatrick That's because atheism isn't believing in nothing. It's disbelief of gods. Lack of belief. There is no positive claim of belief being made. When Christians/Muslims/Theist says "There is a god", Atheists say "There isn't enough evidence to support that claim, therefore I cannot believe it." or something similar. Unless you are talking about strong atheism or gnostic atheism which isn't the norm.
bcFiRe12 1 year ago 2
@bcFiRe12 Yes... I understand your point of view, however... I may have left out quite a bit in my response, as I was referencing to the paradoxical suggestion of "something created from nothing" expressed here in this video. It seems to be a common staple in atheistic "logic", often referenced by M Theory or Quantum Theory but I there is no concrete evidence of something created from nothing or even that there ever was a "nothing"... but we can follow the rabbit down that hole forever.
Mitzpatrick 1 year ago
@Mitzpatrick No, atheism does not say "something created from nothing." Exactly right with your rabbit down the hole forever. I suppose it is possible that the universe cycles through Big Bang/Big Crunch in time (meaning that the energy and matter would never be lost or created), but I doubt humans will ever know. My point is, I have never heard someone argue that something came from nothing. M Theory and Quantum Theory are not atheist dogmas. I do not know enough about them to comment.
bcFiRe12 1 year ago
you look tired as shit...good response though
Artofbeauty 1 year ago
Here's one: WHY did I just sub to the same azrienoch bulljive under a channel with a less awesome name than azrienoch? If this channel turns out to be even better than azrienoch, I shall sue you.
patienceking 1 year ago
i don't think the 'why' question necessarily implies a who.
ReesesMonkeyXP 1 year ago
@ReesesMonkeyXP Well, I'm all ears. I'd love an example of "Why?" not implying a who when used correctly. And by correctly, I mean that it isn't "How?" masquerading as "Why?"
azrienoch 1 year ago
@azrienoch "Why is there something rather then nothing?" doesn't describes anyone doing anything so I don't see how it implies a 'who'.
ReesesMonkeyXP 1 year ago
@ReesesMonkeyXP I agree. I do not see how you went from something to someone. Not everything has a person or thinking being behind it. That seems like a theistic claim.
bcFiRe12 1 year ago
@bcFiRe12 But every motivation does. Every intention and purpose does. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" asks for exactly these things. You can say there is no purpose, intention, or motivation, and that's fine. It's like saying there is no why. I think that's a fine response. It shows you aren't willing to play the game. But you can't at the same time pretend it's an answer. It's a dismissal.
azrienoch 1 year ago
@ReesesMonkeyXP It implies a who because that's how "why" works in ordinary language. The "why" of philosophy comes from the "why" of ordinary language, and if you forget that, it'll lead you down the very line of reasoning you're on now. If there is no who, then there is no why, just a how. Like I said, give me a counter example in ordinary language and I'll gladly change my stance.
azrienoch 1 year ago
@azrienoch So you're saying that 'why' asks the motivation of a 'who'.
How would I ask the question 'why this instead of nothing?' with the meaning of 'how' implace of 'why'?
ReesesMonkeyXP 1 year ago
@ReesesMonkeyXP There's a number of ways you could do it, depending on what you're asking. How did the universe come to be when, if it had to do it all over again, it's extremely unlikely to become at all? How did everything get just perfect enough to get me where I am now? And so on. But if you're asking about purpose, you'll end up with a why question and therefore a who on the other side. Now, as an atheist, you don't necessarily need God to be the who of purpose, but it'll be someone.
azrienoch 1 year ago
@azrienoch I see. This is a new way of looking at the word 'why' for me. Thanks. :)
ReesesMonkeyXP 1 year ago
@azrienoch I agree that saying that there is no motivation is a dismall. As an athiest, I believe in no god to ask 'why did you do this?'. But I still have the question 'why does existence exist?' because it seems that the universe could have just as easily not existed.
ReesesMonkeyXP 1 year ago
There is no why, who or what. It is, a description. I can describe the something, I can describe the nothing. To ask a rock why? is to project humanity onto the rock. There is no why with a rock, it simply is...a rock...a description.
I'm going to buy your book now...as soon as I find enough pennies, nickels...on the street. I am trying to develop patience. It is a sneaky question, thanks for the insight.
ZullGostnu2 1 year ago
Reality is collapsed possibility. From a state of infinite, or near infinite possibility reality forms and crystallizes. Possibility decreases until "now." Now is that state of absolute limited possibility. That is, all things "now" can only be as they are in "now." To ask the question "why" is to assume some other possibility, but that possibility is excluded by the reality that reality is reality.
jpl10380 1 year ago
Yo Momma! Why is the sky blue?
dospook 1 year ago
@dospook because "I" made it blue. Lovely questions...why...I'll be looking for a who now. I've not seen any new videos...or did you block me? Or is youtube blocking me. Or did I shut my eyes again.
ZullGostnu2 1 year ago
Interesting point. I'll be thinking more on this.
DasAmericanAtheist 1 year ago
"Why is there something rather than nothing." Dumb question, "nothing" doesn't exist.
jpl10380 1 year ago
@jpl10380 What does it mean to say something exists?
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@Mjhavok What does it mean to say "nothing" exists?
jpl10380 1 year ago
@jpl10380 Do you often answer a question with a question. Is the concept of nothingness coherent? The absence of anything. Can you conceptualise it? Anyway, you question is a sub question of mine. You answer mine first :-D
Unless you think nothing isn't something. Hehe
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@Mjhavok "Do you often answer a question with a question[?]." Sometimes.
"Is the concept of nothingness coherent?" Yes.
"The absence of anything. Can you conceptualize it?" No, because to conceptualize presupposed a conceiver. The possibility is without meaning. The reason the question doesn't work is because it's postulating alternatives to a situation which has none. There is no possibility for there to be nothing because there is something.
jpl10380 1 year ago
@Mjhavok Again, every question can be responded to appropriately and coherently, without resorting to nonsense. And again, it may not be an actual answer, like we both said. An appropriate response to your question, "Why do you beat your wife?" is "I don't," even though that's not an answer to the question.
azrienoch 1 year ago
How big is the room you're in, like 210 square feet with minimal clutter?(the comb filters in that room really stand out)
new01 1 year ago
@new01 Funny you say that. I've been getting into NI's Massive lately, trying to make some dubstep, and I love using comb filters.
azrienoch 1 year ago
@azrienoch dubstep is some good stuff, i've mainly been studying jazz theory lately. I'm going to be working with a musician friend of mine soon to produce an ep of some wonky jazzy electronic stuff. Really been getting into artists like Dorian Concept, dimlite and Flying Lotus lately. Part of production/recording practice in setting up a studio is finding the comb filters in a room so that they don't interfere with the recording. You should upload some of your dubstep :)
new01 1 year ago
There is no why, only Zuul.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
The "Why is there something rather than nothing?" question. I think I have to conclude it is a somewhat illegitimate question even if I understand the temptation to ask it. The problem with the "something from nothing" question as I see it is that it usually presupposes that "nothing" is the normal or first state or even a coherent concept.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@Mjhavok We know there is something but we don't know that there was ever nothing and having watched Lawrence Kraus' talk online at the Atheist Alliance International conference there seems to be good reasons from physics to suggest that there is always something, even if that something is just virtual quantum perturbations in the vacuum of space.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@Mjhavok I think that nothing (truly nothing) is an incoherent concept outside of mathematics. So I usually treat the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" the same way I treat questions like "What is the taste of blue words?”
So when asked "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I usually say I have no reason or evidence to suppose that nothing is a viable option.
I still think about though. Damit!
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@Mjhavok Well, Mj, my problem with dismissing the question like that is that it dismisses the wrong question. I mean, you're still arguing the "How?" not the "Why?" when you say that nothingness as incoherent. As in, "Wanna know how there's something rather than nothing? There's no such thing as nothing. That's how."
azrienoch 1 year ago
@azrienoch Just because you can ask a question doesn't mean it has an answer.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@Mjhavok Yes it does, it just might not be a very good answer. And I don't mean that the answer would have to be a completely nonsensical nonsequitur, I mean that there will always be a contextually appropriate answer even if it doesn't do a very good job of answering. Try it, it's a fun game.
azrienoch 1 year ago
@azrienoch You can give an answer to any question but it won't neccessarily be the correct answer. I guess by answer what I mean as something coherent. I mean you could ask me anything and I could respond by saying penut butter jelly time. This doesn't make my answer coherent, appropriate or meaningful. Some questions are illegitimate and some are logically absurd. Why do you beat your wife?
Mjhavok 1 year ago
You have some proficiency with video graphics and you use YouTube. The opposiete of a luddite I would say. To be officially crowned a luddite you have to trash an Apple store. :-D
Mjhavok 1 year ago
wtf where you been
TheLittleAtheist 1 year ago
I wish you could elaborate more on the initial question (just for the sake of my curiosity), but awesome analogy!
melarteeh 1 year ago
You're not a luddite; you're a luedkdite! :-)
CousinoMacul 1 year ago
@CousinoMacul Nice.
jeffsmithluedke 1 year ago
@CousinoMacul Why has your video production dried up?
Mjhavok 1 year ago
I'm so sad, I actually get excited when you make a new video! Not watched this one yet just needed to get that off my chest...
TheZeaf 1 year ago