How would you attempt to refute "zero sum nihilism"?

Question

Zero sum nihilism says that the world exists in a "zero sum state." If the entire universe were converted into energy, the sum would be zero. The theory is compatible with the existence of thinking minds (Cartesian "cogito") and with modern physics, in which mass is the main repository of positive energy and negative gravitational potential energy is the main negative energy in the universe.

The theory says that the present universe evolved by unknown mechanisms from the simplest zero sum state. This obviates the existence of god and the problems entailed by it, namely the origins of evil and free will and the contradictions between our expectations and our experience. Thus it is a simpler explanation of the world, in accord with Occam.

If zero sum nihilism is true, (1) violations of complete conservation laws are impossible, (2) nearly empty space is the rule, matter the exception, (3) evolution is from the simpler to the more complex, all of which we believe we observe.

Notes:
(1) By definition, empty space cannot be "observed" (measured to be completely free of matter and energy). Thus "nearly empty space" is used.

(2) Even the atom, the bastion of materialism, is mostly empty space.

(3) The general direction of evolution is from the simpler to the more complex. Simplifications (deletion of vestigial genes) can offer selective advantages in faster cellular reproduction.

(4) In a zero sum universe, the theologian's god, a collection of purely positive infinite attributes, cannot exist without an equally powerful anti-god.

Answer 1

- Evolution is NOT generally from the simpler to the more complex. The vast, vast, VAST majority of life are single-celled organisms, and so far as we can tell always have been and will be. There are number of examples of complex mechanisms getting simpler are multitudinous. Judging by average DNA count per existing organism, no significant change has occurred in billions of years. That is a trend toward stasis, not complexity.

- Occam's Razor is a guideline, not a law. Newton's laws of motion are simpler than those that incorporate relativity, but they are simply just not so. Your zero sum systems doesn't require a god but neither does it require NO god. So the possibility still exists, Occam or no. You even suggest one means yourself. I can think of others.

- Though it is indisputable that most points in space do not happen to coincide with an amount of mass at any level, I daresay that NO point in space is empty in any way. The smallest piece of matter creates a gravitational field which fills the entire universe. So too for every other force that acts at a distance. Where you see an atom as 'empty space', I see a constant battle of positive and negative electric charges. Considering only mass as 'important' could be argued to be a significant prejudice in your philosophy.

Answer 2

A few points to consider:

1. Mass does not possess a specific amount of energy, and therefore cannot be a measure of energy. While it is true that mass must exist where energy exists, energy need not exist merely because mass exists.

2. If matter cannot be created or destroyed, which we accept as true based on laws of conservation, then how is energy created? For zero sum nihilism to be accurate, an increase in energy in a given system would require an increase in mass (if it is, indeed, the main repository for positive energy).

3. Matter exerts gravititational pull, which would seem to indicate that it possesses both positive and negative energy. How does that balance with black holes, which exert a gravitational pull, yet are given as an example of negative energy that balances out matter?

On your three points, (1) violations of complete conservation laws are impossible. (2) An exception to a rule can indicate a flaw in the rule, and begs the question that if matter possesses positive energy, and simultaneously exerts a gravitational pull (negative energy), then what about negative energy in the absence of matter (i.e. black holes)? It does not seem to balance. Finally, (3) the laws of thermodynamics state that if left alone, matters fall into conditions of disorder, rather than order. Evolution is rarely from the simple to the complex. That would be an aberration, rather than the rule. Generally, changes in genetics are considered flaws, and impair a creatures ability to survive, rather than aid it. Consider the Universe as a whole. It is expanding, and is cooling down, which means that it is devolving. Or, on a smaller scale, consider the common evolutionary experients with fruit flies. While antibodies are able to develop, which are then passed down, making certain strands of fruitflies resistent to diseases, physical modifications generally limit it's ability to survive and thrive in a natural setting (curled, or undersized wings, for example). The only verifiable genetic changes are detrimental to biology. The ones commonly attributed to evolution are related to blood and chemical modifications which can be passed on to offspring, but does not necessitate a genetic change in the species.

Answer 3

I would argue:

Gravitation can not be the negative balance of physical matter because two material objects must exist for gravitation to exist. For example, if the universe contained one object, composed of all the mass in the universe, there would be no gravity to "balance" it. Only if this object were split in two would gravitation exist.

So an evolving universe as described, starting from the simplest sum zero state could not transition beyond the state of having one material object without an unbalance between material "positive" energy and "negative" gravitational energy.

Answer 4

Well this theory is relatively new to me in recent years. I dislike it because it cannot in any way give me meaning or impact me emotionally or give me reasons for existence or explain cause and affect.

Of course these are man's perspectives now.

The only way I can refute this logically is to say that this theory is another of man's theories only. And therefore can seem to be true or not true. Therefore to make this philosophy to be true it is a matter of choice for the individual to make it so. I choose not to believe it and as a consequence stay within the confines I exist in now.

Answer 5

0 = 1 = 2

It all exists in exactly the same quantity, just different quality. It's called Harmony.

Good luck!

Answer 6

there's no such element as a win-win because of the fact somebody will continuously lose something. you want to redistribute wealth? the place is that wealth coming from? it incredibly is coming from somebody. he in simple terms lost.

Answer 7

Yo, you're thinking too much. Go outside, lay on the grass, and chill....

Answer 8

its more like "zero substance nihilism"