Atla wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 5:53 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 5:05 pm
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.
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!
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.