1 of 1- FrenchySkepticalCatholic
- Member
Offline 
- From: France
- Registered: 10/17/2017
- Posts: 151
Playing the Devil's Advocate : bubbles of nothingness
Hello,
Since I've been mulling over the idea for a few months, I think I can give it to you all, so you can help me find what's good/bad about it.
I'm going to defend the biggest objections against my views in the hope of seeing what's correct.
I call them "bubbles of nothingness", for they undercut three of my cherished beliefs, namely moral responsability, free will, and god.
I got them by reading Hume, Dennett, Heraclitus, Democritus, and Einstein/Parmenides.
Here they are :
1. The Universe is not a distinct entity, but the group of a kind of entities called "bubbles".
2. Since each bubble is unique, it's impossible to make a claim about *all* bubbles (and realism fails).
3. Bubbles are close to what one could call "event", but they lack objectivity or entire realism : what exist of a bubble is what is perceived.
4. There are no real objects : bubbles are sensations, and thus give the impression that objects or bubbles are located spatiotemporally.
5. The successions of bubbles follow a posteriori law, but there is no reason for this law to be something understandable.
6. Selves aren't real, but constructions (like 4. above) from a few bubbles that appears to be a single object.
7. There is no God or ordaining principle, anything "just happens". There is no causality : the whole universe could pop out of existence at any moment without warning.
8. We are not in control of our lives : bubbles (from 6) give impressions that we are real (from 4), but in reality, they're just a bunch of actions/impressions without start or end.
9. Logic can't be trusted (because it doesn't really exist), and it's probable that there is no truth.
10. Arguments don't work : they stem from bubbles, and give the impression that "we" have meaningful discussions and disagreements, but they're just "illusions".
11. You are not the origin of your thoughts. Rather, your thoughts are first (they're part of bubbles) and then an illusionary "you" pops in from them.
12. Similarly, there is no intention : what is there are impressions. You can't will something, but you'll be subject to whatever happens. If a future event coincides with what your thoughts are, you'll feel as if you willed and caused it, but it's not the case.
12. Reality isn't coherent. Perhaps these objections don't make sense, perhaps they're just true "by chance", but they are true. It's impossible to prove them false, because they're true.
13. Since there are no real objects, the PNC/PoI can't be used to defuse these objections.
Most of them have the "you're nothing but a floating camera in a world of chaos" vibe.
I think I can also add these two :
a. From a block-universe view, reality can't be changed or altered, so it's impossible for us to change or to do anything. If we do something or change our minds or anything, it's because it's the way reality is (a kind of epiphenomenalism?).
b. There is no "underlying" reality out apart from bubbles; so speaking of causality is meaningless at best, and false at worst.
Here is my poisonous package. Writing them already help me to sort and see how clumsy and shaky they are, but I'll play the disputatio at my best and try to defend them coherently.
Feel free to shoot any big arguments/defeaters. I'm wondering why my mind is causing them to be hard onto my poor self, so I post them here in the hope of help. At times, I feel that my mind embraces irrationality. It's rather horrificly scary, and I don't know what I could do to stop these weird thoughts to pop in. :/
Thank you for your help !
God bless,
FSC
- Camoden
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 6/28/2016
- Posts: 73
Re: Playing the Devil's Advocate : bubbles of nothingness
I do not think that would not be open to PNC and PoI based objections. It would clearly still be open to a retorsion argument, as the intellect which is doing the judging could not in principle be governed by such a reality. Since we are a rational agent in such a reality, we have a contradiction. But in order to come to the conclusion this is a contradiction is to be a rational agent governed by this law. Therefore, we are rational agents who do not exist in this reality. The PoI for example can be justified introspectively. There is clearly no coherent way to deny at least something akin to introspection being a feature of the human person, even if one comes to know ones self by acting rather than pearing into ones mind.
Last edited by Camoden (11/06/2017 1:07 pm)
- Jimbo28
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 11/02/2017
- Posts: 12
Re: Playing the Devil's Advocate : bubbles of nothingness
Whoa! Frenchy, reading this reminds me of the old idea that we're all actually brains in vats being fed this experience of an external world. I cannot disprove it, but I have absolutely no reason to believe it, and in accordance with the principle of credulity, in the absence of defeaters I'm rational to believe what seems to be the case to me, and what seems to be the case is that the external world is real. That is my general stance towards the suggestions you listed. For most of them, I cannot disprove them, but I have absolutely no reason to believe them either. For some of them in particular, they are open to being positively disproved. For example:
FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:
9. Logic can't be trusted (because it doesn't really exist), and it's probable that there is no truth.
This is itself a claim to truth. So the statement is disproved in virtue of its being self-contradictory. Also, the statement that logic doesn't exist or can't be trusted presupposes logical absolutes. In order to deny the principle of noncontradiction, one has to assume it in order to disprove it. If the principle of noncontradiction isn't true, then that entails that it is also true, because if there is no principle of noncontradiction, all propositions can be both true and false. The laws of logic are therefore philosophically incorrigible, or self-evident, or necessary, or self-affirming, or whatever you want to call it. You get the idea though.
From a block-universe view, reality can't be changed or altered, so it's impossible for us to change or to do anything
Well, that doesn't really follow in a very significant sense, and compatibilists can tell you all about that.
I'm wondering why my mind is causing them to be hard onto my poor self, so I post them here in the hope of help. At times, I feel that my mind embraces irrationality. It's rather horrificly scary, and I don't know what I could do to stop these weird thoughts to pop in. :/
If these sorts of nonsense ideas are intrusive and causing you mental distress, you may be doing more harm than good by intellectually dignifying them with a response, so to speak. I wouldn't get bogged down in trying disprove them. I know that for myself, there are times where I consciously have to put down philosophical ruminations for awhile, because I can see that my thought process has become wearying and unproductive, like a hiker in the woods who thinks he's making progress but finds himself going in circles. At times like that, you're better off consciously stopping the rumination and resetting your bearings. Find a distracting hobby that engages you physically and mentally.
- FrenchySkepticalCatholic
- Member
Offline
- From: France
- Registered: 10/17/2017
- Posts: 151
Re: Playing the Devil's Advocate : bubbles of nothingness
Whoa! Frenchy, reading this reminds me of the old idea that we're all actually brains in vats being fed this experience of an external world. I cannot disprove it, but I have absolutely no reason to believe it, and in accordance with the principle of credulity, in the absence of defeaters I'm rational to believe what seems to be the case to me, and what seems to be the case is that the external world is real. That is my general stance towards the suggestions you listed.
You can read if you're interested. I think you'll like it.
If these sorts of nonsense ideas are intrusive and causing you mental distress, you may be doing more harm than good by intellectually dignifying them with a response, so to speak. I wouldn't get bogged down in trying disprove them. I know that for myself, there are times where I consciously have to put down philosophical ruminations for awhile, because I can see that my thought process has become wearying and unproductive, like a hiker in the woods who thinks he's making progress but finds himself going in circles. At times like that, you're better off consciously stopping the rumination and resetting your bearings. Find a distracting hobby that engages you physically and mentally.
Problem is, I can't stop asking myself these questions, which feeds onto a vicious circle of helplessness, and the idea that I'm not free; e.g. "if I was free, I wouldn't ask myself these questions, but I keep asking them, so I'm not free; etc.".
For example, when do I do a choice? When I think about it? Yeah, but this thinking was caused by outside events. So I'm not choosing... :/
- •
Thread Starter