## Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1706
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

### Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

bahman wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 4:28 pm I am happy that you agree with what I said. It is sort of difficult to find people who agree with you in this forum. For the math part, I cannot help it since I left physics and math a very long time ago.
I think people agree with each other a lot more than we get or give credit for. We just tend to focus on what we disagree to on specifics while we let rest those things we agree to. Ironically, those agreable things just close off the conversation/thread and get buried as though it were less interesting or irrevant.

At least this is how I think we need to interpret the apparent lack of agreements with each other. It helps to hear it sometimes though, and thank you in return for saying so.

Those 'thanks' that some sites use can also act to bully others oddly enough, just as 'reputation' markers etc. So it helps to acknowledge others more like this.
Skepdick
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon May 13, 2019 8:24 am As the title is asking, does the statement that....

There is such a reality as non-X for any and every X.

...stand true universally? (as a Tautology for reality)
Sure. it's this reality.

Principle of super-position.

Either this is existence; or this is non-existence. We don't know which one.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon May 13, 2019 8:24 am As the title is asking, does the statement that....

There is such a reality as non-X for any and every X.

...stand true universally? (as a Tautology for reality)
(A --> (B <---> -A))

For example: If "A" is cat and cat directs to Dog "B", as non cat, the recurssion of variables in Dog, as cat, occurs (such as hair, teeth, 4 legs, etc.), but the Dog is not cat as there are traits which tautologically are different from its origins. So if Cat progresses to Dog, Dog and Not Cat occurs through eachother.

Dually the progression of 1 to 2 results in a difference of one where -1, as a superimposed number line going in the opposite direction, occurs with the expansion of one line to another.

Everytime a context progresses to another context, the new context contains elements of the old (through recursion) but the new context is not the old context and contains what the prior context is not. Thus the new context always contains an absence of the old context in one respect, due to newness of the context, while contains elements of the old at the same time.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Sat Mar 07, 2020 4:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

RCSaunders wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 5:18 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon May 13, 2019 8:24 am As the title is asking, does the statement that....

There is such a reality as non-X for any and every X.

...stand true universally? (as a Tautology for reality)
There is a huge logical mistake here. Of course there is a non-X for every X. In fact there are an infinity of them. For every X, everything else is a non-X.

I think you may be asking if for every X there is some kind of compliment, or converse, or negative form of X or anti-X; in which case the answer is no.
There are an infinity which compose x as well.

There are infinite definitions as to what composes x and what does not compose x, x is the middle point on a continuum that goes both ways.
RCSaunders
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

### Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2020 4:32 am There are infinite definitions as to what composes x and what does not compose x, x is the middle point on a continuum that goes both ways.
Sure! So for you, a definition is like stupidity. The difference between genius and stupidity is, genius has its limits.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2020 3:53 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2020 4:32 am There are infinite definitions as to what composes x and what does not compose x, x is the middle point on a continuum that goes both ways.
Sure! So for you, a definition is like stupidity. The difference between genius and stupidity is, genius has its limits.
Take it up with the Munchauseen Trilemma.
PeteJ
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

### Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon May 13, 2019 8:24 am As the title is asking, does the statement that....

There is such a reality as non-X for any and every X.

...stand true universally? (as a Tautology for reality)
I may be misunderstanding you, but if not then my answer would be yes.

This is to do with the categories of thought, A category requires a division into member/not-member or X/not-X. Equivalently, in order to exist a thing must 'stand out' such that the existent and its background form a pair X/not-X. Equivalently, in set theory to represent a set we require a blank sheet of paper, whch again gives us X/not-X.

Thus the mystics refer to his world as the 'world of opposites'. This dualism would not go all the way down since reality would be a Unity, but at any higher level all existence would depend on symmetry-breaking and duality.

For a proof, or at any rate a model, there is Spencer Brown's 'calculus of indications' presented in his Laws of Form'.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1706
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

### Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

PeteJ wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:44 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon May 13, 2019 8:24 am As the title is asking, does the statement that....

There is such a reality as non-X for any and every X.

...stand true universally? (as a Tautology for reality)
I may be misunderstanding you, but if not then my answer would be yes.

This is to do with the categories of thought, A category requires a division into member/not-member or X/not-X. Equivalently, in order to exist a thing must 'stand out' such that the existent and its background form a pair X/not-X. Equivalently, in set theory to represent a set we require a blank sheet of paper, whch again gives us X/not-X.

Thus the mystics refer to his world as the 'world of opposites'. This dualism would not go all the way down since reality would be a Unity, but at any higher level all existence would depend on symmetry-breaking and duality.

For a proof, or at any rate a model, there is Spencer Brown's 'calculus of indications' presented in his Laws of Form'.
See the post from page one, my motivation for asking.

Do you agree that you could technically have an "absolute nothing" as a potential origin, if an origin existed by this reasoning? While it would be self-contradicting, this would be alright when you interpret the 'absolute' to include even abstract assumptions about logic itself, correct? That if an Absolute Nothing existed, it has no bias against even being a contradiction or it would require 'obeying' an assumed reality about consistency itself that is yet to exist at such a potential origin.
PeteJ
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

### Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 10:57 pm Do you agree that you could technically have an "absolute nothing" as a potential origin, if an origin existed by this reasoning? While it would be self-contradicting, this would be alright when you interpret the 'absolute' to include even abstract assumptions about logic itself, correct? That if an Absolute Nothing existed, it has no bias against even being a contradiction or it would require 'obeying' an assumed reality about consistency itself that is yet to exist at such a potential origin.
I find the idea of absolute nothing absurd. If this were a possible state of Reality then it would be in this state now.

Something-Nothing are just another example of X/not-X, thus part of the mundance world of conceptual opposites.

To transcend these opposites for a theory of origins means transcending the categories of thought and positing the truth of the Perennial philosophy and its doctrine of Unity. This states that the creation of our psycho-physical world begins with the first instance of X/not-X. Some say this is the subject-object distinction. This would be the first broken-symmetry and represent the 'Fall' from Unity to multiplicity. There would be no such phenomena as absolute Nothing or Absolute Something. 'Things' would be created and arise from what is not a thing.