h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, could it? In what way? Over to you, T and F.

Grime



PS Heidegger thought it shouldn't be!

For anyone joining us, this is a new thread about the Guide Entry on Heidegger's Ultimate Question, at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A626212

and branching off from the Peer Review conversation connected with it. I recommend that you read the article, (it's a short one), and the Peer Review discussion to get a handle on it.


Grime

Frogbit's contribution to the original thread went to the crux of the matter:

Frogbit wrote:

You wrote (meaning me - G);
*But let's explore, if you want to: do you think the existence of the world, the way the world is or is perceived to be, is necessary (could not be otherwise) or contingent (could be otherwise)?*

If it were contingent, wouldn't we be just asking the same question in a different place?

Hi Grime. Nice place you have here!

Would you mind if I rephrased your question, in order to clarify what we are discussing?

'Is the phenomenal universe predetermined, or is it subject to external alteration?'

Or, to put it in a slightly different way:

'Is existence an inevitable 'result' of 'causality', or is existence subject to being changed or 'affected' by 'free will?'

Tal

Hi Tal,

Thanx 4 dropping by

I've just realised you're a scout. On a variation of the London buses observation, (you wait for one for 30 minutes then three turn up), I've waited for a scout to turn up for weeks and then I immediately argue with him! Oops...

Your rephrasings don't quite meet the question, actually. It's really on the existence of the world as it is or seems to us/you to be - assuming it exists, is its existence necessary (inevitable) or contingent (accidental)?

Your questions follow on from this, (except the change needn't be external), but this one is the crux of the matter.

I'm NOT just setting up a discussion to win it or lose it, (I do hate that sort of game). I'm exploring the question to
*show* what I think (involving your own thinking) rather than just
*saying* it (Wittgenstein's distinction in my article).


Grime

I quite realise that you are not arguing for the sake of arguement. However, I am still not 100% sure of the question, although it may seem obvious to you.

Let us break it down into smaller bits, if possible.

BTW, I am not talking behind my Scout or ACE badge.. just as another human, hitching through the immensity...

By 'existence of the world', do you mean all of existence, or specific to the current state of the world? I just want a feel for the scope of the thing...

By necessary, or inevitable, do you mean pre-determined, or planned, or pre-destined? -- which all pretty much mean the same thing, in my book.

You say contingent, or accidental -- do you mean purely by random chance rather than design?

Sorry for the apparent pickiness, but I find it is often very helpful to have a clear common understanding of a question at the outset.. Sometimes the answer is forthcoming merely by clearly defining the problem..

I will hazard that if you are talking about something planned, or designed as opposed to something happening by random chance or accident - a planner would likely be required for a plan, whereas none would be required for pure random chance.. But since I am as yet unsure that is what you mean, I cannot go much further...

Well, I could, but I just want to make sure, first

No, you're absolutely right. Many hours can be (and so often are!) wasted discussing unclear questions.

Frogbit seems to have gone quiet, so I'll speak for him by bringing in something he said in the PR which I think is helpful:

"If it were contingent, wouldn't we be just asking the same question in a different place? "

That's a good start on what I mean. But the question isn't any more sacrosanct that anything else. If the world were contingent (could be otherwise), we could be asking a different question in the same place, or a different question in a different place, or we could in fact be different ourselves etc.etc. Everything could be different.

Do you want to come in here Frogbit?


Grime

Don't mind if I do. There's a bit of a pre-amble here, but stick with it.

The question is 'Why is there something instead of nothing'.

OK, well an obvious answer to that would be 'If there was nothing, there would be no-one around to ask awkward questions.'

And if that isn't good enough for you. . .

At a sub atomic level, particles flash in and out of existence. If this is true for the sub-atomic level, it has to be true for the atomic level. And if it's true for the atomic, it's true for the molecular, and true for the cellular. But if that's true, how come we can see each other and the world so well? Why doesn't it flash on and off?
A cinematic image only has to flick through a projector at around 26 frames per second. The images on screen appear to move quite smoothly, even though they aren't there for any significant time. If things are synchronised correctly, all appears to be running smoothly.

So here's a really scary question 'If our component parts are flashing on and off all the time, where are we when we're not "here"?'

There has to be 'something' for the expression 'nothing' to have any meaning, and vise-versa. The two states are not mutually exclusive - in fact they depend on each-other - a fusion. It is as wrong headed as saying there is 'right' and 'wrong' with no 'maybe', or only 'hot' and 'cold', and no 'warm'.

'Where are we when we're not here?' or more to the point, '*What* are we when we are here and not here?'
We are something and nothing simultaniously.
Bet you wish you never asked me over now.

Frogbit.

Thanks, Frogbit. But is the world necessarily like this or could it have been different?

And if it could have been different, couldn't it not exist at all?

Grime

We'll just have to assume we're both talking about the same world here.
I don't know what you mean by 'necessarily'. The population stands at about 6 billion, so that's 6 billion different conceptual universes running about the place. You'll have to be more precise on that one. Necessarily like what? Like the picture of events a turtle has ? A fish? A mussel attached to a deep-sea volcanic vent?
Or did you mean apes (as usual)?

Could it not exist at all?

Easilly. In fact if you go outside (light pollution permitting) and stare at the stars, you'll see a multitude of places in which it doesn't exist at all.

Could it not exist at all?

It has failed to exist far more times than it has existed.

Nothing exists external to the universe, by definition. Even if somehow something external to the universe could affect space/time, again by definition we would have no way of detecting the change, because we are intrinsic to the universe.

All experiential phenomena apparently exist in space/time. We seem to exist in a universe of separate subject and object, a universe of separate entities. But we can empirically prove that no such separate, phenomenal entities could exist, because by definition, every 'thing' in the universe is intimately connected to every other 'thing'.

Although it may appear that phenomenal existence is dependant upon our decisions, upon reflection we see that those decisions depend upon prior decisions, ad infinitum. Because we are intrinsic to the universe, the separation of cause/effect is, like time, also an illusion.

If causality were valid, there could not be separate entities to freely choose. If it were invalid, there could be no separate entities to cause anything.

The problem is, we assume the existence of an entity, an 'I-concept', which freely affects the causal chain of events, yet is unaffected by causality.

In short, what happens, happens. What does not happen, cannot happen. If what does not happen, somehow happened, then it would not be at all noticeable, even to the illusory entities we believe ourselves to be.

OK. I think all these hypotheses are valid.

Necessary means could not be otherwise. If you take this view, then freedom of action is the price you pay for it. Since everything affects everything else, or so Einstein tells us - every body in the universe has has a gravitational effect on every other body - then our actions must be as necessary and unavoidable as everything else - otherwise our actions (even crossing the room) would change things.

This view is that the world cannot be otherwise than it is.

Contingent means that the world (which is equivalent to the way the world is - if India were not attached to Asia but attached to Antarctica it would be a different world, or if Dubya wasn't the current president of the US, etc. etc.) just happens to be, as a matter of fact rather than necessity, in existence (the way it is), for which you pay the price of certainty.

So Heidegger's Question - why should there be anything rather than nothing? is also asking this question - in fact we've started on H's question itself by thinking about such things - is it necessary that there is a world, or merely a fact of contingent existence? And each way, there remains the question - why isn't there just nothing itself? And what would 'nothing' mean? How could THAT be possible? Where would this 'nothing' be?

This is scary for me, because it raises an image of the possibility of a nothingness which I can't understand, within which the world 'exists'. This is Sartre's basic 'existentialism' in Being and Nothingness. Sartre's view is similar to the Buddhist concept of everything being 'empty". It takes away the ground for certainty - even scientific certainty [although that's another topic in itself].

It also raises the question of my own existence - and that of those that I love etc. In short, they could as easily not exist as exist ( even if the world itself were somehow necessary - because I personally believe that even if at first sight the world seemed necessary, it would only be a contingent fact that it was).

For Heidegger, this means probably (my interpretation) that the existence of the world is the true miracle, and that if we approach it as it is - a miracle - then we're more likely to treasure it, particularly the natural world. He spent most of his working life in a cabin in the mountainous Black Forest, as close to the earth and its beauty as he could get.

Sorry to rush through to an apparently dogmatic statement - but it's really about me, not about the truth or falsity of the matter, and also I'm going on holiday at the end of the week, (if I exist!)!


Grime

The Buddhist concept of emptiness is not nothing, but rather no thing.
No thing = all things in potential. Not so much a lack of anything, but like the space between the stars, fizzing with energy. (Not New-Age drippy energy, but measurable variations in back-ground radioactivity and so-on).

Going anywhere nice? Necessarily?

Yes, they're not the same, but I was rushing through to give some idea of why I (and many others through history, even before Heidegger) find the question scary (at times), which was what Tal was asking me.

I'm going to St.Ives in Cornwall for a week or two (teaching some art for the first week). Not necessarily, because we could have chosen to go somewhere else


Grime

Interestingly, science has proven, more or less, that reality IS uncertain.. but this is not, or should not be 'scary'.. rather, it should be a cause for joy.. because it ultimately means that this timeless, precious moment is all that exists, and exists for all past and future time, everywhere, and that whatever you and I are, which is not whatever we may think we are, is intrinsic to that timeless, universal existence, paradoxical as that may seem to our time-bound minds...

So, yes, treasure each moment.. each 'now', for it is what you are, and it is immensely precious...

Enjoy your holiday, even though it doesn't really exist

Thanks, Frogbit and Tal, for a fascinating and deeply interesting thread - if you exist

It ended in near poetry - as did Heidegger. Wonderful.

Grime

HOLD IT!

You speak as though the subject's finished with. Nice posting Taliesin, but for one thing. You say that scientists have proven that the universe is uncertain.
But if you have an uncertain universe, how can you have proof? It would mean that the scientists were the only certain things in it.

Frogbit.

OK, Frogbit. I was trying to keep this short and not about L, the U 'n E, (I was happy to leave loose ends around and not confuse the picture by trying to get them all tied up - in knots probably ), but if you want to carry on, fine, of course. I'll have some really interesting stuff to look forward to when I come back!

Unless you decide to start a new thread, which would be another way to do it.


Grime

Is this why philosophy never ends? (Don't answer that!)
Have a bloody good holiday Grimes, going to the Eden Project? (You don't have to answer that, either.
Frogbit. (Looking forward to your return).

I actually said, if you check , 'more or less'... in other words, 'as much as science can be said to prove anything'..

without going into excruciatingly technical details about quantum mechanics, (Heisenberg et al), the indications are that, paradoxical as it seems, the scientific data indicates existence is not scientifically definable.. in other words, it is not objectively 'certain'..

As you are no doubt aware, science never talks about 'facts' as indisputable or immutable.. All science does is make reasonable predictions. So science is just as uncertain as everything else...

I apologise for not being clear about that