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: 1694
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

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

Post by Scott Mayers »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 12:43 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 9:43 am You mistake the meaning of a 'complement' (not 'compliment', by the way).
Not the meaning, the spelling. Thanks for pointing it out.

You originally asked, "Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?" I answered the question and gave my reasons for that answer. If you are not satisfied with that, then you aren't. I think the opposite view is unrealistic, but can't see that it does any harm, except to one's epistemology.

Thanks for the interesting conversation.
I need a counter example sufficient to determine if this is strong enough to begin an apriori approach of a logic using nothing as its initial inputs. I'm also trying to determine if I CAN communicate this or should not bother trying. It doesn't matter if I succeed or not in the long run.

But you are right, I don't find your response satisfactory. It is too 'naive' to expect the opinion of another to count as though I'm merely looking for an 'agree or disagree' type of response with an explanation that appears only to reflect things I already understand with clarity. Reality doesn't poll to determine what is true of itself. I'm looking for something stronger.
Atla
Posts: 2893
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon May 27, 2019 2:27 pm
Atla wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 10:00 am How come you don't realize that your entire thinking is backwards by the way?

All we can do is percieve reality first, and then try to come up with theories that fit it.

You come up with a theory first, and than expect reality to behave accordingly. For example why would your ideas about consistency have anything to do with the actual reality?
I believe both are valuable. We begin from where we are and induce what MAY be true using our senses seeking patterns. Then we would guess at what reality's logic (its formulas and/or laws), then, where possible test it going forward. Science is mainly of this role.

Reality as a whole though to me has to be something that lacks a 'creator', god, or magical reality at its 'origins'. This means that there has to be some way to figure out how reality can be 'reconstructed' without anything at all. This means that under some ideal conditions, an intellectual mind, ....more advanced than no mind at all,...should have the capacity to figure out how reality can be reconstructed from literally nothing. So, my interest is to seek a means to determine this 'bottom up', or, what may be called, "foundationally".

I HAVE done this to a great degree. I am not complete with my own theory on all the details yet but have found out how you can do this when you take an approach through logic alone. But you CAN determine this if you begin with reasoning on certain tautologies such as this thread's questions and take an approach similar to the set theories.

You also have to try to do this with the least bias to 'special' assumptions (like religious origin myths) and by "reinventing the wheel" (if you can) by trying to place yourself in the minds of the original thinking and processes of determining reality that others have. (something not normally practical for most people to reasonably do)

You are free to disagree with this process. But unless some law (human/political) is made to prevent me from doing this, what reason SHOULD restrict me from this approach? I certainly know it works. Whether I can communicate it (say, through formal theory and theorems) is a distinct challenge though. And this is why I'm at least trying here.

To the last part of your question, if you want to prove something CAN be true about reality, you CAN demonstrate it step by step beginning with a 'theory'. This is like one presuming some program can be created to do something by first dealing with the logic of the computer programming. If you have a 'theory' of an effective program, you need to reconstruct the "machine" first, then demonstrate how it can be used to create/recreate a program that mimics reality. If the program succeeds, this is the 'proof' of the possibility of what may be true by the theory you propose. If you can find a way to CLOSE this (completeness and consistency) by some standard, you CAN rule out all other possibilities and be left with whatever theory stands as an explanation that maps to reality.
This process is obvious to me (I have my own unified theory), and you haven't actually addressed my question.

We can come up with infinitely many kinds of such reconstructions, and you've picked one with quite a lot of 'special' assumptions actually (like the religious myth of 'origins' for example, or that human mental content is part of infinite possibilities). Why are you so certain that your reconsctruction is better than the others, how do you even know that it says anything of use about the actual reality?

Why is an abstract backwards thinking about infinite possibilities any better than for example a straightforward, concrete multiverse picture of infinite possibilities?

What makes you think that reality is following your ideas of consistency? Something can be true but unmappable by any human-made consistency. Or maybe something is humanly consistent and yet impossible in reality. Why would the two be connected.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1694
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

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

Post by Scott Mayers »

Atla wrote: Mon May 27, 2019 3:27 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon May 27, 2019 2:27 pm
Atla wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 10:00 am How come you don't realize that your entire thinking is backwards by the way?

All we can do is percieve reality first, and then try to come up with theories that fit it.

You come up with a theory first, and than expect reality to behave accordingly. For example why would your ideas about consistency have anything to do with the actual reality?
I believe both are valuable. We begin from where we are and induce what MAY be true using our senses seeking patterns. Then we would guess at what reality's logic (its formulas and/or laws), then, where possible test it going forward. Science is mainly of this role.

Reality as a whole though to me has to be something that lacks a 'creator', god, or magical reality at its 'origins'. This means that there has to be some way to figure out how reality can be 'reconstructed' without anything at all. This means that under some ideal conditions, an intellectual mind, ....more advanced than no mind at all,...should have the capacity to figure out how reality can be reconstructed from literally nothing. So, my interest is to seek a means to determine this 'bottom up', or, what may be called, "foundationally".

I HAVE done this to a great degree. I am not complete with my own theory on all the details yet but have found out how you can do this when you take an approach through logic alone. But you CAN determine this if you begin with reasoning on certain tautologies such as this thread's questions and take an approach similar to the set theories.

You also have to try to do this with the least bias to 'special' assumptions (like religious origin myths) and by "reinventing the wheel" (if you can) by trying to place yourself in the minds of the original thinking and processes of determining reality that others have. (something not normally practical for most people to reasonably do)

You are free to disagree with this process. But unless some law (human/political) is made to prevent me from doing this, what reason SHOULD restrict me from this approach? I certainly know it works. Whether I can communicate it (say, through formal theory and theorems) is a distinct challenge though. And this is why I'm at least trying here.

To the last part of your question, if you want to prove something CAN be true about reality, you CAN demonstrate it step by step beginning with a 'theory'. This is like one presuming some program can be created to do something by first dealing with the logic of the computer programming. If you have a 'theory' of an effective program, you need to reconstruct the "machine" first, then demonstrate how it can be used to create/recreate a program that mimics reality. If the program succeeds, this is the 'proof' of the possibility of what may be true by the theory you propose. If you can find a way to CLOSE this (completeness and consistency) by some standard, you CAN rule out all other possibilities and be left with whatever theory stands as an explanation that maps to reality.
This process is obvious to me (I have my own unified theory), and you haven't actually addressed my question.

We can come up with infinitely many kinds of such reconstructions, and you've picked one with quite a lot of 'special' assumptions actually (like the religious myth of 'origins' for example, or that human mental content is part of infinite possibilities). Why are you so certain that your reconsctruction is better than the others, how do you even know that it says anything of use about the actual reality?
To your presumption of ME believing the underlined part is imposing on me a belief I accuse others of, not something I hold. I don't approve of religious origin theories in the least and so my answer was to express that nature CANNOT have a special causation....thus 'nothing' is the only possibility to cause anything.
Why is an abstract backwards thinking about infinite possibilities any better than for example a straightforward, concrete multiverse picture of infinite possibilities?

What makes you think that reality is following your ideas of consistency? Something can be true but unmappable by any human-made consistency. Or maybe something is humanly consistent and yet impossible in reality. Why would the two be connected.
You are begging. Prove that my thinking is 'backwards'. But wait,....you'd first need to be able to interpret what I AM 'forwarding' first! :roll:

The questions of this thread should be addressed. If I add extraneous information about motive to help you understand why I am questioning this, it is not meant to address the motivating issues here or from context of other thread discussions. So given I asked the question, tell me if you disagree and give some example (counter to the statement's assumption as a tautology).
Atla
Posts: 2893
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 5:05 pmTo your presumption of ME believing the underlined part is imposing on me a belief I accuse others of, not something I hold. I don't approve of religious origin theories in the least and so my answer was to express that nature CANNOT have a special causation....thus 'nothing' is the only possibility to cause anything.
The idea of 'origin' itself is a religious myth.
(And nothing causing something is pretty much the ultimate contradiction.)
You are begging. Prove that my thinking is 'backwards'. But wait,....you'd first need to be able to interpret what I AM 'forwarding' first! :roll:

The questions of this thread should be addressed. If I add extraneous information about motive to help you understand why I am questioning this, it is not meant to address the motivating issues here or from context of other thread discussions. So given I asked the question, tell me if you disagree and give some example (counter to the statement's assumption as a tautology).
Well your question is backwards. X and non-X are concepts belonging to abstract formal systems. Whether in our systems there is "non-X for any and every X" or not, that doesn't necessarily say anything about reality.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1694
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

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

Post by Scott Mayers »

Atla wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 5:53 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 5:05 pmTo your presumption of ME believing the underlined part is imposing on me a belief I accuse others of, not something I hold. I don't approve of religious origin theories in the least and so my answer was to express that nature CANNOT have a special causation....thus 'nothing' is the only possibility to cause anything.
The idea of 'origin' itself is a religious myth.
It depends on the meaning of 'origin'. If we are talking of an 'absolute origin', this includes time. As such, it can be rational. My arguments on origins is conditioned IF we don't have a finite possibility. This is because under an absolute infinite possibilities, this INCLUDES absolute nothing as one such possibility.

To me, a 'special' totality, would be one that biases us to a SPECIFIC unique existence whether it be finite or infinite.
(And nothing causing something is pretty much the ultimate contradiction.)
But that would imply that something causes absolutely everything, something which is unprovable.
You are begging. Prove that my thinking is 'backwards'. But wait,....you'd first need to be able to interpret what I AM 'forwarding' first! :roll:

The questions of this thread should be addressed. If I add extraneous information about motive to help you understand why I am questioning this, it is not meant to address the motivating issues here or from context of other thread discussions. So given I asked the question, tell me if you disagree and give some example (counter to the statement's assumption as a tautology).
Well your question is backwards. X and non-X are concepts belonging to abstract formal systems. Whether in our systems there is "non-X for any and every X" or not, that doesn't necessarily say anything about reality.
I disagree. If we can use a calculator as a tool to figure something out, while the calculator itself is not the literal data being used ABOUT reality, it is still necessary for the calculator itself to be as real as what the tool is used to operate on.

The data too is also a logic. In essence, all things are machines whereby some act as relative systems that operate on other machines that act as relative data. These 'machines' are logical AND real.

Our 'specific' universe requires us to use induction to infer what OUR particular reality is initially, but still has a universal mechanism that only includes our specific universe as a subset of the whole of totality. We cannot have 'laws of physics' mean anything if there isn't some reason for why these laws require being consistent, even if we don't know them. My interpretation is that reality is NOT consistent on a whole (totality) but that the patterns of possibilities enables a subset of this whole, like out particular universe, to exist that IS 'consistent' in pattern. The 'laws' then, are just descriptive patterns of THIS universe and then don't require some 'god' to enforce when absolutely everything is possible in a larger perspective.

The question here is can there be an absolute one without it also being something else simultaneously, making it AT LEAST two? If Totality exists as that which absolutely contains all such that neither anything, including nothing, lies outside of it, then what is non-Totality, is anything except this absolute whole. Thus, this suggested my question. This is not a merely meaningless statement.

If you take anything, including potentially nothing, what is not that thing has to exist.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6208
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

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)
Double positive thread, math/logic section.
nothing
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

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

Post by nothing »

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)
Yes. Non-belief for every knowledge.

For every belief-based ignorance there is a knowledge-negating-belief counter-part.

All knowledge negates all belief ad infinitum, thus serves as a basis for reality wherein
all particular belief-based ignorance(s) have a corresponding 'body of knowledge'
such to negate. This allows a universe of all possible belief-based ignorance (as endorsed)
with all possible knowledge(s) as the constituency(s) of all possible outcomes given any 'present'.

Therefor a logic can be constructed which solves for a universal axes.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3199
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

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

Post by bahman »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 3:57 am
commonsense wrote: Tue May 14, 2019 2:03 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue May 14, 2019 1:04 am

I had to look back at this because I thought you were just repeating what I wrote. Ha ha.

I'm asking if a complement exists for every possible thing you can think of? I think it simplifies a question about another issue but I want to see if there is anything that might limit this that I haven't thought of. I'm looking for a possible counter example.
Aren’t you really trying to prove a negative?
I figure this statement suffices (if there is no X without a complement) to argue this:

Let X = Absolutely Nothing.

Then non-(Absolutely Nothing) exists necessarily. That is, we have at least Absolutely Something necessarily for absolutely nothing sufficiently.

We also have, making X = Absolutely Something, a non-X = Absolutely Nothing. This implies that

Absolutely Nothing exists if and only if Absolutely Something Exists.

If this doesn't follow, I need to determine what I might be missing or at least get confirmation of others on this. It doesn't mean that I'd require abandoning it but I'm trying to see if I it is essential to make it a 'postulate' or if it stands as a universal reality without a need to postulate it.
Opposite of thing is not nothing.
commonsense
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

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

Post by commonsense »

bahman wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:00 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 3:57 am
commonsense wrote: Tue May 14, 2019 2:03 pm
Aren’t you really trying to prove a negative?
I figure this statement suffices (if there is no X without a complement) to argue this:

Let X = Absolutely Nothing.

Then non-(Absolutely Nothing) exists necessarily. That is, we have at least Absolutely Something necessarily for absolutely nothing sufficiently.

We also have, making X = Absolutely Something, a non-X = Absolutely Nothing. This implies that

Absolutely Nothing exists if and only if Absolutely Something Exists.

If this doesn't follow, I need to determine what I might be missing or at least get confirmation of others on this. It doesn't mean that I'd require abandoning it but I'm trying to see if I it is essential to make it a 'postulate' or if it stands as a universal reality without a need to postulate it.
Opposite of thing is not nothing.
Nothing is opposite of thing.

What else is opposite of thing?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1694
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

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

Post by Scott Mayers »

bahman wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:00 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 3:57 am
commonsense wrote: Tue May 14, 2019 2:03 pm
Aren’t you really trying to prove a negative?
I figure this statement suffices (if there is no X without a complement) to argue this:

Let X = Absolutely Nothing.

Then non-(Absolutely Nothing) exists necessarily. That is, we have at least Absolutely Something necessarily for absolutely nothing sufficiently.

We also have, making X = Absolutely Something, a non-X = Absolutely Nothing. This implies that

Absolutely Nothing exists if and only if Absolutely Something Exists.

If this doesn't follow, I need to determine what I might be missing or at least get confirmation of others on this. It doesn't mean that I'd require abandoning it but I'm trying to see if I it is essential to make it a 'postulate' or if it stands as a universal reality without a need to postulate it.
Opposite of thing is not nothing.
"Nothing" is a compound of "No thing" or "Not (even) one thing". So "not nothing" means "not (not even one thing)" or ..."something".

The contradicting opposite of "No thing" is "Some thing", not "All things", which is its contrary. Because I begun with ONLY one thing and called it out as meaning "no thing", then no matter what, an absolute "Nothing" is both which means "no ANY thing". So in this unique case, IF reality had an ABSOLUTE of being Nothing, then the semantic meaning of this ONE truth (real or not) is itself a 'thing' even if that one thing is literally meaning "No thing exists absolutely".
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3199
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

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

Post by bahman »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:18 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:00 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 3:57 am

I figure this statement suffices (if there is no X without a complement) to argue this:

Let X = Absolutely Nothing.

Then non-(Absolutely Nothing) exists necessarily. That is, we have at least Absolutely Something necessarily for absolutely nothing sufficiently.

We also have, making X = Absolutely Something, a non-X = Absolutely Nothing. This implies that

Absolutely Nothing exists if and only if Absolutely Something Exists.

If this doesn't follow, I need to determine what I might be missing or at least get confirmation of others on this. It doesn't mean that I'd require abandoning it but I'm trying to see if I it is essential to make it a 'postulate' or if it stands as a universal reality without a need to postulate it.
Opposite of thing is not nothing.
"Nothing" is a compound of "No thing" or "Not (even) one thing". So "not nothing" means "not (not even one thing)" or ..."something".

The contradicting opposite of "No thing" is "Some thing", not "All things", which is its contrary. Because I begun with ONLY one thing and called it out as meaning "no thing", then no matter what, an absolute "Nothing" is both which means "no ANY thing". So in this unique case, IF reality had an ABSOLUTE of being Nothing, then the semantic meaning of this ONE truth (real or not) is itself a 'thing' even if that one thing is literally meaning "No thing exists absolutely".
To me nothing is a state of affair that there is no thing. There are things that are opposite to each other, like positron and electron, good and evil, etc. Therefore, nothing is the neutral state of affair.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1694
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

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

Post by Scott Mayers »

bahman wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:08 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:18 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:00 pm
Opposite of thing is not nothing.
"Nothing" is a compound of "No thing" or "Not (even) one thing". So "not nothing" means "not (not even one thing)" or ..."something".

The contradicting opposite of "No thing" is "Some thing", not "All things", which is its contrary. Because I begun with ONLY one thing and called it out as meaning "no thing", then no matter what, an absolute "Nothing" is both which means "no ANY thing". So in this unique case, IF reality had an ABSOLUTE of being Nothing, then the semantic meaning of this ONE truth (real or not) is itself a 'thing' even if that one thing is literally meaning "No thing exists absolutely".
To me nothing is a state of affair that there is no thing. There are things that are opposite to each other, like positron and electron, good and evil, etc. Therefore, nothing is the neutral state of affair.
You mean like that the opposite of a 'thing', such as matter(s), is 'space' rather than a pure vacuum with not even space?

I chose the adjective "relative" with "nothing" to refer to the "no thing that is matter nor space", such as EACH point in some 'space' and
...the adjective, "absolute" with "nothing" to discuss something even LESS than this or any other possible worlds IF there is an origin.

With exception to the Absolute Nothingness, all other parts of Totality would be Relative points of Nothing(s) and would then have a distinctly different complement. Only at some origin, should it exist, this could ONLY BE "Absolute Nothing(ness)" and would still be simultaneoulsy "Absolutely ONE thing", a "Relative Something".

So for every X there would be a non-X except "Absolute Nothing" at some ideal origin of Totality itself.

And "origin" begs a TIME, which is just a kind of spatial dimension and why such origins that lack time could not exist or be just the distinct points in space everywhere, ....including matter.

[Matter is actually just the way space can have 'curved' paths rather than simply 'lines'. So even all matter(s) is Relative Nothing.]
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3199
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

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

Post by bahman »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:29 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:08 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:18 pm
"Nothing" is a compound of "No thing" or "Not (even) one thing". So "not nothing" means "not (not even one thing)" or ..."something".

The contradicting opposite of "No thing" is "Some thing", not "All things", which is its contrary. Because I begun with ONLY one thing and called it out as meaning "no thing", then no matter what, an absolute "Nothing" is both which means "no ANY thing". So in this unique case, IF reality had an ABSOLUTE of being Nothing, then the semantic meaning of this ONE truth (real or not) is itself a 'thing' even if that one thing is literally meaning "No thing exists absolutely".
To me nothing is a state of affair that there is no thing. There are things that are opposite to each other, like positron and electron, good and evil, etc. Therefore, nothing is the neutral state of affair.
You mean like that the opposite of a 'thing', such as matter(s), is 'space' rather than a pure vacuum with not even space?
I mean that opposite of matter is anti-matter. Opposite of time is anti-time, opposite of space is anti-space, etc. Nothing is an state of affair that there is no thing, no time, space, matter, etc.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:29 pm I chose the adjective "relative" with "nothing" to refer to the "no thing that is matter nor space", such as EACH point in some 'space' and
...the adjective, "absolute" with "nothing" to discuss something even LESS than this or any other possible worlds IF there is an origin.
I see. There was an origin, however, when there was absolutely nothing. Nothing is one state of affair which is a possibility. Everything is related to countless number of states of affair which is another possibility. Therfore, absolute nothing is unstable.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:29 pm With exception to the Absolute Nothingness, all other parts of Totality would be Relative points of Nothing(s) and would then have a distinctly different complement. Only at some origin, should it exist, this could ONLY BE "Absolute Nothing(ness)" and would still be simultaneoulsy "Absolutely ONE thing", a "Relative Something".

So for every X there would be a non-X except "Absolute Nothing" at some ideal origin of Totality itself.

And "origin" begs a TIME, which is just a kind of spatial dimension and why such origins that lack time could not exist or be just the distinct points in space everywhere, ....including matter.

[Matter is actually just the way space can have 'curved' paths rather than simply 'lines'. So even all matter(s) is Relative Nothing.]
Things that comprise everything can have different properties so they can cancel each other. That means that there is nothing on average.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1694
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

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

Post by Scott Mayers »

bahman wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:51 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:29 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:08 pm
To me nothing is a state of affair that there is no thing. There are things that are opposite to each other, like positron and electron, good and evil, etc. Therefore, nothing is the neutral state of affair.
You mean like that the opposite of a 'thing', such as matter(s), is 'space' rather than a pure vacuum with not even space?
I mean that opposite of matter is anti-matter. Opposite of time is anti-time, opposite of space is anti-space, etc. Nothing is an state of affair that there is no thing, no time, space, matter, etc.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:29 pm I chose the adjective "relative" with "nothing" to refer to the "no thing that is matter nor space", such as EACH point in some 'space' and
...the adjective, "absolute" with "nothing" to discuss something even LESS than this or any other possible worlds IF there is an origin.
I see. There was an origin, however, when there was absolutely nothing. Nothing is one state of affair which is a possibility. Everything is related to countless number of states of affair which is another possibility. Therfore, absolute nothing is unstable.
That 'instability' is itself a type of "cause" or "initiating force", relatively speaking, for all of reality. But since it is without time, it would be 'statically' true in that it would be an instantaneous all-or-nothing Totality. So technically speaking, since "existence" MEANS for us something in time, then reality for anything IN Totality is infinite in time(s) and space(s).

You can also have a 'static' presentation of this all of Totality using discrete math concepts, like set theory and symbolic logic.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:29 pm With exception to the Absolute Nothingness, all other parts of Totality would be Relative points of Nothing(s) and would then have a distinctly different complement. Only at some origin, should it exist, this could ONLY BE "Absolute Nothing(ness)" and would still be simultaneoulsy "Absolutely ONE thing", a "Relative Something".

So for every X there would be a non-X except "Absolute Nothing" at some ideal origin of Totality itself.

And "origin" begs a TIME, which is just a kind of spatial dimension and why such origins that lack time could not exist or be just the distinct points in space everywhere, ....including matter.

[Matter is actually just the way space can have 'curved' paths rather than simply 'lines'. So even all matter(s) is Relative Nothing.]
Things that comprise everything can have different properties so they can cancel each other. That means that there is nothing on average.
Yes, I would agree with that.

I am working on a kind of physics 'theorem' (versus theory) that can demonstrate or 'model' reality as derivable from one CONSTANT, namely a "nothing" (absolute or relative), using only pointers (just one kind of 'variable' portal or container that points TO at least this Nothing as an initial 'class'). It's not necessary to actually prove that the pointer exists because it is pointing to 'nothing'. Then you can build, using logic, a realistic model that can show what physics is without using anything but these pointers and the initial contradiction of it being both a something and a nothing. This instability of being both simultaneously is what manifests 'change' (or 'energy') and suffices to express everything possible.

But note that such a 'force' too doesn't actually have to 'exist' either per se. This is because if and only if an Absolute Nothing has a point anywhere in Totality, the state of being Absolutely Nothing lacks a reason for assumptions about 'laws' initially. That it has no counterforce preventing it from "obeying" so-to-speak, it only has to be both nothing AND something at once for anything to exist, like a 'seed' without a source 'seedmaker'. There then is no 'force' to cause anything because it means Absolutely Everything exists.....in Totality, that is. Where contradictions exist, these are just separated or 'split' in two classes.

I'm not sure if you are following but it appears that you have some intuition to following what I said so far.

Note that if Absolute Nothing exists, then so does Absolutely Everything IN TOTALITY. But not all worlds are "possible" in all subsets of Totality because for Absolutely Everything to exist, so do all that is relatively 'impossible' from the perspective of a given universe exists. These relative impossibilites are like jigsaw puzzle peices that don't make any sensible images, like a box of such pieces that don't get used for them being unable to be 'sensible worlds', like ours.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3199
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

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

Post by bahman »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 4:03 am
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:51 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:29 pm
You mean like that the opposite of a 'thing', such as matter(s), is 'space' rather than a pure vacuum with not even space?
I mean that opposite of matter is anti-matter. Opposite of time is anti-time, opposite of space is anti-space, etc. Nothing is an state of affair that there is no thing, no time, space, matter, etc.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:29 pm I chose the adjective "relative" with "nothing" to refer to the "no thing that is matter nor space", such as EACH point in some 'space' and
...the adjective, "absolute" with "nothing" to discuss something even LESS than this or any other possible worlds IF there is an origin.
I see. There was an origin, however, when there was absolutely nothing. Nothing is one state of affair which is a possibility. Everything is related to countless number of states of affair which is another possibility. Therfore, absolute nothing is unstable.
That 'instability' is itself a type of "cause" or "initiating force", relatively speaking, for all of reality. But since it is without time, it would be 'statically' true in that it would be an instantaneous all-or-nothing Totality. So technically speaking, since "existence" MEANS for us something in time, then reality for anything IN Totality is infinite in time(s) and space(s).

You can also have a 'static' presentation of this all of Totality using discrete math concepts, like set theory and symbolic logic.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:29 pm With exception to the Absolute Nothingness, all other parts of Totality would be Relative points of Nothing(s) and would then have a distinctly different complement. Only at some origin, should it exist, this could ONLY BE "Absolute Nothing(ness)" and would still be simultaneoulsy "Absolutely ONE thing", a "Relative Something".

So for every X there would be a non-X except "Absolute Nothing" at some ideal origin of Totality itself.

And "origin" begs a TIME, which is just a kind of spatial dimension and why such origins that lack time could not exist or be just the distinct points in space everywhere, ....including matter.

[Matter is actually just the way space can have 'curved' paths rather than simply 'lines'. So even all matter(s) is Relative Nothing.]
Things that comprise everything can have different properties so they can cancel each other. That means that there is nothing on average.
Yes, I would agree with that.

I am working on a kind of physics 'theorem' (versus theory) that can demonstrate or 'model' reality as derivable from one CONSTANT, namely a "nothing" (absolute or relative), using only pointers (just one kind of 'variable' portal or container that points TO at least this Nothing as an initial 'class'). It's not necessary to actually prove that the pointer exists because it is pointing to 'nothing'. Then you can build, using logic, a realistic model that can show what physics is without using anything but these pointers and the initial contradiction of it being both a something and a nothing. This instability of being both simultaneously is what manifests 'change' (or 'energy') and suffices to express everything possible.

But note that such a 'force' too doesn't actually have to 'exist' either per se. This is because if and only if an Absolute Nothing has a point anywhere in Totality, the state of being Absolutely Nothing lacks a reason for assumptions about 'laws' initially. That it has no counterforce preventing it from "obeying" so-to-speak, it only has to be both nothing AND something at once for anything to exist, like a 'seed' without a source 'seedmaker'. There then is no 'force' to cause anything because it means Absolutely Everything exists.....in Totality, that is. Where contradictions exist, these are just separated or 'split' in two classes.

I'm not sure if you are following but it appears that you have some intuition to following what I said so far.

Note that if Absolute Nothing exists, then so does Absolutely Everything IN TOTALITY. But not all worlds are "possible" in all subsets of Totality because for Absolutely Everything to exist, so do all that is relatively 'impossible' from the perspective of a given universe exists. These relative impossibilites are like jigsaw puzzle peices that don't make any sensible images, like a box of such pieces that don't get used for them being unable to be 'sensible worlds', like ours.
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.
Post Reply