Philosophy Now Forum

Dalek

Your issue seems to come from a lack of understanding and comprehension, or just a failure to read. I stated and I quote...

"we physically can"

A unicorn does exist, but it is not tangible. Therefore I can represent it. An idea of any kind exists, but is not tangible. Therefore I can represent it. "Nothing" does not exist. The absence of a "thing" is not "nothing" of that thing.

care to offer any other suggestions? insults?




Hobbs

Care to point out exactly where I contradicted myself? Or are you having trouble finding it?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Only on Thursdays.

Twice on Sunday.

But only if there is an "R" in the month

SummeR! Can hardly wait! (May, June, July, August.)

conway wrote:Dalek

Your issue seems to come from a lack of understanding and comprehension, or just a failure to read. I stated and I quote...

"we physically can"

A unicorn does exist, but it is not tangible. Therefore I can represent it. An idea of any kind exists, but is not tangible. Therefore I can represent it. "Nothing" does not exist. The absence of a "thing" is not "nothing" of that thing.

care to offer any other suggestions? insults?

I'd prefer insults, but let's try this instead. Unicorns don't exist, and are not tangible exactly for that reason. Anything can be represented if I can think it, tangible or not, existing or not. Nothing exists as an idea, and has been represented in computer programming as nil, or the empty list which points to nil. And if I never conceive a child, there is an absense of population by one from the future population, which clearly doesn't exist, but probably will, and can be discussed and symbolized.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

conway wrote:
"Nothing" does not exists. By definition. Therefore logically one can not use a symbol.....which exists....to represent that which does not exists. Unless you wish to run the risk of error. I mean we "physically" can label an apple with a poison symbol, but we run the risk of error.

Then you have contradicted yourself, more than once.

Umm, nothing is a word symbolizing nothing. So is nil in Lisp. So you are saying that, though the word nothing exists, we can't use it, because it symbolizes nothing? You are so tied up into a pretzel, it's unbelievable.

Dalek. This is just the "why is there something rather than nothing?" story without the logical grounding which defines this question as meaningless. Nothing doesn't exist because something does.

Perhaps conway could mathematically demonstrate a square circle as well, or a four-sided triangle.

Obvious Leo wrote:Dalek. This is just the "why is there something rather than nothing?" story without the logical grounding which defines this question as meaningless. Nothing doesn't exist because something does.

Perhaps conway could mathematically demonstrate a square circle as well, or a four-sided triangle.

Wanna see a magic trick, Leo?

"Leave nothing out of this discussion." I just made nothing everything, and now it exists.

"Leave everything out of this discussion." Now I just made everything nothing again, and it doesn't exist again.

Now you see it, now you don't, abracadabra, presto!.... (Impressive, eh? )

I have an apple in my fruitbowl but no apple in my hand. In my fruitbowl I have an apple and in my hand I have a no-apple. I think I'm getting the hang of it, mate, but to a simple country lad it still sounds like bullshit.

Obvious Leo wrote:I have an apple in my fruitbowl but no apple in my hand. In my fruitbowl I have an apple and in my hand I have a no-apple. I think I'm getting the hang of it, mate, but to a simple country lad it still sounds like bullshit.

Reminds me of the old joke "It smells like shit, looks like shit and tastes like shit. Glad I didn't step in it."