Blogging Around

First, I responded to Alyssa’s best of week post. She talked about revolutions, as many other people did. I completely agreed with what she wrote, and extended her points, as I say them.

“Hi Alyssa,

First off, let me say that I agree with your post. Second, though I agree with what Choi said above, I don't think he's responsive to exactly what you were getting at.The way I interpreted the post wasn't so much that revolutions themselves were good or bad, but the use of revolutions in fiction and thinking are good to inform us of trends and plot in terms of the human experience.I especially like how you argued that revolution-based plots are more interesting than "easy read" books. I agree that revolutions in books force us to think about how the character evolves and how this applies to humanity in general.It's true that we should be reflective of revolutions that occur within our lives, whether the revolutions are good or bad.(as Choi points out they sometimes are) But then again, if any particular revolution is best left at the back of your mind, then maybe ignorance can be bliss, in comparison.-Mitchell B.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, I wrote a rather lengthy analysis of Choi’s points made in his post regarding the idea of “something from nothing”. Though I agreed with most of the points he made, I thought he could have gone a little further in order to completely reject the idea that something could ever come from nothing. Almost all of his arguments support this, but he barely comes out and rejects the “something from nothing” idea. I commented on his post, because I also wrote about this subject for my best of week post.

“Hello Choi,

I largely agree with most of what you have here. I think the important distinction that needs to be made is that while humans are of no value, but value can be created by the human mind. Nothing that means nothing can have meaning in it. With bias, we can create meaning. To us, the life of a worm is practically worth nothing, a worm doesn't have the traits that we, as humans value. But to a worm, it is worth everything. Meaning that we create is comparative based on what, through evolution, has become an attractive trait. But if we get out of the mindset forced upon us by evolution, we realize that everything is the same. Any perception of "better" or "worse" come solely from human bias. For example is there any meaning in the truth that 2+2=4? Any answer of "yes" is based off of that truths usefulness in human life, so, without bias, the answer is no. It is much the same for the universe. Some will say that there is value in "truth", but I want to make the argument that we only think this because humans lie. When we look at the universe, everything is true. I'm not saying that lies are true, but that it is true that lies are said. Taken into account in this fashion, obviously, everything is true. It's a fact that with repetition or in abundance, things lose their value. The more of anything you have, the less it is worth to you. This is simple economics and psychology. If the universe is made of infinite truths, we indeed have no value.

Moving on to your third paragraph, I completely agree with what you are getting at, but you never really come out and say it. You get closest when you say: "Perhaps we are taking things a little too literally. Did something really come from nothing, or should we compare opposites?" Basically, what you're saying is that something is never really coming from nothing. For example in King Lear, genius or philosophy coming from madness is not something coming from nothing. Madness is not nothing. In terms of human value, we (the sane, particularly) place madness next to nothing in order to make ourselves feel better and because evolution made madness (usually) unattractive. This is the same problem I've always had with the "something from nothing" idea. There is no instance in which nothing is actually nothing, that we can point out empirically, simple because if nothing ever did exist, nothing existed to remember it/point it out. Again, the idea that something comes from nothing is built on human bias and ideals.

However, I disagree with your statement that what we observe as something from nothing is actually order from chaos. While I prefer this statement to "something from nothing" (because you aren't labeling anything as "nothing"), I feel that it suffers due to the same problems in logic. Again chaos itself could mean anything, as could order, because as we use the words, they are comparative. For example, you call a volcano chaos, by labeling it destructive, while you call arable land orderly. But it can be argued to be the opposite. A volcano is governed by very basic, chemical equations; the way it acts is very orderly, in correspondence with laws of thermodynamics. It can be said that arable land is much more chaotic, because, organic chemistry, as well all know, is much harder to put into trends and explain with equations. I, however, would like to say that both the volcano and the arable land are orderly, as they are all governed by laws. I would like to argue that chaos is an illusion we use to describe things that we are unable to understand. To a child that does not understand subtraction, addition is much more orderly, while subtraction is chaotic, because the child understands the laws of addition. However, subtraction is not chaotic, just because the child doesn't understand the laws of subtraction, does not mean that there ARE NO laws of subtraction. For example, the child might thing that 18 subtracted by 4 is 12, that 25 subtracted by 6 is 21, that 13 subtracted by 7 is 10, it’s obvious that the child is using an incorrect law, whether or not the child recognizes he/she is using a law, they will think that subtraction is chaotic, follows no laws because it contradicts what the child's mind thinks is the law of subtraction. So, again, chaos is an illusion created by human comparison and confusion. Political anarchy may seem chaotic to a human, but without the bias of the human experience, just for what political anarchy is, and not what it means to humans, it is governed by the same laws as anything else, and is thus order.

I don’t like your last paragraph: "So, can something come from nothing? I guess that's the central question. And I guess my answer is... it depends. Nothing is never nothing. There is always something. Something greater. And we can always expand." The last couple of sentences say that nothing cannot be. There is never nothing. There is always something, which can change and be analyzed by human bias. You have implied that since there never was a nothing, something cannot ever come from nothing, because there never was nothing. If the last four sentences are true (which they are), your answer should NOT be "it depends". Your warrants have led you to the right conclusion, but you haven't made the final step.

-Mitchell B.”