Well, gee, do you want to discuss Physics or Philosophy? If the latter, go talk to Betty Boop and Alamo Girl.
Funny you should ask, balrog666. Just earlier today, I read a post from you that I almost replied to. I could go track it down; but the above statement recalls the gist well enough for present purposes.
For what it's worth (if anything at all), to my way of thinking, it has become fashionable to divvy up human knowledge into distinct, impermeable specialities or sub-categories, such that different knowledge disciplines -- such as physics and philosophy -- must forever be segregated into mutually exclusive realms of human intellectual endeavor, such that at no point are they allowed to come into contact with each other.
To which I would only suggest: Perhaps human will wishes to keep separate what Nature herself these days is telling us must be cross-correlated in order for human beings to make further progress in both respective disciplines -- that is to say, in both science and philosophy. QM is screaming for a "context," to anyone who has the ears to hear it. And so is cosmology, which of all the philosophical disciplines is most dependent on the truthful report of the physical sciences.
I do not understand the present "animosity" that folks of the one school or other, have for "the other side." That, to me, is a dead end -- in terms of real human progress. IMHO, both sides would do far better, in terms of the advance of the total body of human knowledge, if they could figure out a way to peaceably collaborate.
I expect that, ideally, both sides need to maintain their respective methods and tools: They need to stay distinct from each other at this level. It's because they have different methods and tools, and have different objects of inquiry, that the sum total of their several insights and achievements is what constitutes, in the end, the fullest purchase on truthful human knowledge that mankind can get at any particular time in history.
The "Human Project," it seems to me, would be far better served by collaboration and mutual criticism, than to have either side "run amok," without the natural check -- and source of insight -- of the other. JMHO, FWIW. Thanks for the ping, balrog666.
Captain11, if you wish to discuss philosophy - the real experts here are betty boop, cornelis, Phaedrus, beckett and diotima.
My interest is a little bit of everything, heavy on the math, physics, information systems and especially, the Word. But if you want to discuss null, void, empty, Ayn Sof – I’m your girl! Ayn Sof is the Hebrew word for God at creation, infinite and yet nothing.
Whereas I’m “on board” with the Einstein observation that space and time do not pre-exist but rather are qualities of the extension of field (space/time is created as the universe(s) expand - inflationary model) --- I do see the inception issue you raise and answer that the "void" you perceive is God, Ayn Sof
My view of origins is on this thread. Please feel free to post yours there, if you’d like. Thanks!