Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am Given that we are 'something', if you assume that 'nothing' is not real. We have...

Something == Something OR Nothing
What do the 'double equal' symbols mean, to you, here?

Why IF someone else ASSUMES that 'nothing' is not real, then how and why does this, to you, then mean
Something == Something OR Nothing

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am where "nothing' is defined as "not-something".
When did we jump from "you assume that 'nothing' is not real" to " where "nothing" is defined as "not-something" ".

'Not-something' could be very different to 'not real'.

Also, IF Something == Something OR Nothing, then does this not, to you, infer that 'Nothing' is actually some 'thing'?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am Yet, note that

Nothing == Something AND Nothing
Why did you write this, and also write, "Yet, note that ...", as though it is some irrefutable fact?

If you did not mean it as though it is some irrefutable fact, then what did you mean by writing that?

Also, how did you arrive at the conclusion "Nothing == Something AND Nothing" and "Something == Something OR Nothing", and what is the ACTUAL difference here?
______________________
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am We defined "matter" as "that which occupies "space".
Who defines 'matter' as this?

I certainly have NEVER defined 'matter' this way. So who and/or what EXACTLY is the 'we', which 'you' refer to here?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am But most think that "space" is somehow less real with confusion in the same way as the above but opposite:
How do you KNOW 'most' think this?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am (Matter) == Something AND Nothing
I really hope you have explained what the double equal symbol means, to you, here.

Because I can not yet see how 'matter', which is a physical 'thing', could be related to Nothing, as it appears here to me.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am ......since matter is dependent upon space, as a 'nothing' to lie in while space still exists without matter.
I do not yet see how the words after the word 'since' logically follow on from the preceding words.

Also, to me 'space' is dependent upon 'matter' equally as much as 'matter' is dependent upon 'space'. And, how EXACTLY could 'space' still exist without 'matter'?

Furthermore, 'matter' could also still exist without 'space'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am Because space exists independent of matter,
Is this an ALREADY PROVEN FACT or just what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am we have "space", as a form of relative 'nothing' to mean that it MUST exist if matter exists.
But what is 'space' if it is NOT an absolute 'nothing'?

Also, IF there is a thinking organism, then there MUST exist 'matter', and 'space'. Therefore, we have 'matter', in a form of an absolute 'something' and as a relative 'something', which means that 'matter' MUST exist if 'space' exists. What is also logically followed and reasoned is 'space' also MUST exist if 'matter' exists.

The plain and very simple FACT IS: If there is a contemplating being, then space AND matter MUST exist together. And, what can be logically concluded is that space AND matter MUST co-exist together ALWAYS.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am But IF space exists apriori, then it IS possible for "space", as a "nothing" to exist as....

(Space) == Something OR Nothing. .......since space can exist by itself OR included within matter, as a 'something'.
But 'space' is NOT included within 'matter'. Unless of course one wants to include it this way. But, if one did, then that would just be illogical AND absurd.

By the way, 'matter' COULD exist by itself just as equally as 'space' COULD.
But, IF either did solely exist, then there could NEVER be a wondering, pondering, thinking being.
There is a wondering, pondering, thinking being.
Therefore, 'matter' NOR 'space' exist alone.

Also because BOTH 'matter' AND 'space' are NEEDED for change to occur, there ALWAYS exist BOTH 'matter' AND 'space'.

By the way, 'space' is OBVIOUSLY a 'something', which NO argument is needed for.

'Space' is just a relatively sized absolute nothing.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am The above demonstrates two opposite logical interpretions of 'nothing' that conflict unless we interpret them coexisting in Totality necessarily.
But there is NO actual conflict here. Unless, of course, one sees a conflict and/or 'tries to' demonstrate a conflict.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am In fact, the above suggests that with respect to Totality, NOTHING == SOMETHING.
I, again, hope you have explained what the double equal sign symbol means, to you.

_______________________
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am While this is relatively 'contradicting' to us for any particular ordered world, like ours,
But this is NOT relatively 'contradicting' AT ALL, to me. Although I can CLEARLY SEE you have made it 'contradictory' and how 'it' could be seen to be to 'you', adult human beings.

But maybe if 'you' LOOKED AT the REAL 'world' instead of "our world", then you would probably SEE things much CLEARER.

There is NO contradiction at all in the One and ONLY Truly 'ordered world'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am if you interpret NOTHING as outside of Totality, then there is NO 'outside' because Totality is all there is.
The if/then sentence here does NOT logically work.

There is NO 'outside' of Totality - FULL STOP. If one interprets there is, no matter if it that is NOTHING or ANYTHING ELSE, then that has NO bearing on the conclusion that there JUST IS NO 'outside' of ALL-THERE-IS/Totality.

People will NOT listen to you just because you tell them SOME thing. You have to PROVIDE the ACTUAL PROOF of what you say. So, what ACTUAL PROOF will you PROVIDE for there is NO 'outside' of Totality?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am Then this means that Absolutely Everything exists.
Just because YOU SAY; 'Totality is all there is', then this does NOT at all MEAN that Absolutely Everything exists.

If you want to say that 'Absolutely Everything exists', then I suggest providing some ACTUAL PROOF for this. THEN that would MEAN Absolutely Everything ACTUALLY does exist.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am And given that the concept, "Absolute Nothing" then is also true by this meaning, while it seems conflicting, it is not with respect to Totality because the essence of an absolute state of Nothingness would lack even 'consistency' there without a problem because we define it as 'inconsistent' by
'I' do NOT define 'an absolute state of Nothingness' as 'inconsistent' AT ALL.

By the way, the concept, 'Absolute Nothing', does NOT seem conflicting to me AT ALL.

In fact, from having the concept of 'Absolute Nothing', 'How the Universe actual works' can be much more CLEARLY SEEN and much better UNDERSTOOD FULLY.

See, an absolute state of Nothingness DOES NOT and COULD NOT exist. But there is OBVIOUSLY limited spaces of Absolute Nothing, which HAVE TO exist.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am Nothing == Nothing AND Something
Still waiting for CLARIFICATION.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am Thus, on the level of Totality, "inconsistency" rules it AS being Nothing. It is breaking no 'law' because laws are necessarily 'consistent' and we have this:

Inconsist Reality == Inconsistent AND Consistent Realities collectively.

To us, we cannot determine literally THAT we were born nor die, even where we, being alive, we can use this to refer to others.
Well that is certainly one conclusion.

WHY do 'you' use the words 'us' and 'we' in relation to 'cannot', as though you KNOW, for sure?

Who or what is giving 'you' the "right" to speak for 'us', especially in regards to what 'we' can or can NOT do?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am So...

IF AND ONLY IF reality has a ORIGIN, it can only ultimately 'begin' in as ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
LOL

Besides the ABSOLUTELY faulty way in which you have "arrived" at this 'conclusion', the fact that this conclusion ALREADY existed within 'you' previously and which you ALREADY BELIEVED was true, before you 'tried to' formulate an argument that, supposedly, backs up and supports this "argument", the "conclusion" that "IF 'reality' has an ORIGIN, then it could ONLY 'ULTIMATELY' begin in, or from, an ABSOLUTE NOTHING is about as absurd and illogical as one could get.

To PROVE this, just EXPLAIN HOW some thing could come from NO thing.

If you can do this in a non absurd and logically reasoned way, then FULL MARKS to you. I await, patiently.

For 'reality' to have an ORIGIN, then it would first have to be logically and physically [empirically] POSSIBLE. And, from what I have observed, so far, an ORIGIN to REALITY is NOT logically NOR empirically POSSIBLE.

In fact, because of CAUSALITY, ITSELF, and CAUSALITY ALONE, something from nothing is NOT logically possible NOR empirically possible. In fact, CAUSALITY infers that it is IMPOSSIBLE, logically AND empirically, for some thing to come from NO thing.

By the way, what the ACTUAL Thing IS, which causes/creates REALITY, is VERY EASY to SEE, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW, that is; once you learn and KNOW how to LOOK AT and SEE things properly AND correctly.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am This is a conditional truth. The only alternative is INFINITELY EVERYTHING exists.
Everything exists, infinitely AND eternally, and this has ALREADY been PROVEN, logically, AND will be PROVEN empirically, sufficiently enough.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am You cannot assert that which lies outside of Totality where it is infinitely inclusive from being trapped inside of it. As such, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING == INFINTELY EVERYTHING and has to include at least an Absolute Nothing as 'some origin'.
So, only just a couple of lines back you write that "IF reality has an ORIGIN, then ...", but now you ASSERT that 'Absolute Nothing' HAS TO BE INCLUDED as 'some origin'.

The ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, within that head, are appearing much more STRONGER and much more CLEARER NOW.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am Therefore, Absolute Nothing exists.
LOL
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am It just has no 'time' as we interpret 'existence' requiring for us to have meaning.
Double LOL
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:40 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:08 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:16 pm The principle of causality (PoC) says that everything has a cause. PoC, however, applies to material things. Nothing is not material. Therefore, PoC does not apply to it.

This also indicates that nothing to something is possible which means that there is no need for God.
It does apply, since no cause means no effect.
If Nothing is 'original' (or logically, apriori), then this suffices to inclusively contain both cause and effect. If this state of being existed, you may think it cannot 'cause' something to manifest, right? But then the alternative is that BOTH Nothing AND Something exist, and thus that no 'origin' can exist. Nothing still has to be simultaneously true of ALL things that exist, in other words because Something cannot exist INDEPENDENT of Nothing and then it would mean that not even something you classify as "Nothing" could be true or you'd be contradicting yourself in assuming no such thing as "nothing'.
BUT, Something COULD very easily exist INDEPENDENT of Nothing. However, because there ALREADY exists a thinking being, Something COULD NOT exist INDEPENDENT of Nothing. Just like how Nothing COULD NOT exist INDEPENDENT of Something. BOTH Something AND Nothing COULD NOT logically AND empirically exist INDEPENDENT of the other. 'you' existing is living PROOF of this FACT.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:40 am Therefore, you have to accept the coexistence of these extremes, even though the meaning of an 'absoulte' type of nothing has to be included. We just cannot demonstrate literally what nothing is in absence of something because WE are made of something that cannot deny its own existence.
This does NOT logically follow.

We demonstrate, literally, lots of things, which can NOT be physically SHOWN to be true.

So, I can VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY demonstrate, literally, what nothing is in absence of something. IF, however, 'you' are YET able to SEE and RECOGNIZE 'this', then that is a whole other matter.

Through the use of words it is POSSIBLE to, literally, demonstrate/show 'things'. Like, for example, an 'absence of something'. All that is needed is curiosity, wisdom, intelligence, openness, AND IMAGINATION, ITSELF.

After all 'absolutely nothing' exists in imagination only.

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:40 am This makes the idea of this at best, "ineffible", especially for those unable to infer meaning to nothing as possibly apriori.
The word 'ineffable' is sometimes used by those who do NOT YET FULLY KNOW what 'it' is [the subject], which they are 'TRYING TO' explain.

The idea and concept of 'absolutely nothing' is NEEDED in being able to learn and understand FULLY how the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS. This is because the 'absolute nothing', which does ACTUALLY EXIST, is NEEDED for the Universe to work as efficiently and as proficiently as It does.

On a side note; For the Universe to be able to work out, and thus KNOW, Its (True) Self [Thy Self] then a wondering, pondering, thinking being HAD TO evolve, and HAS TO 'keep evolving'.

ASSUMING and BELIEVING what is true, however, prevents and stops the WONDERING and the PONDERING of what IS. An ASSUMING and BELIEVING thinking (human) being therefore is NOT able to SEE CLEARLY what ACTUALLY IS. However, a Truly Honest, OPEN, and Intelligent Being CAN and DOES SEE CRYSTAL CLEAR, and so becomes to Know Thy Self.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by surreptitious57 »

I still have to read all of the posts you have just made but accept most of what you have said here
Some of it I do not really understand but shall just have to see if you will provide any clarification
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by AlexW »

Age wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:02 pm Is something to nothing equally possible?

If yes, then will you provide an explanation and/or example?
Within the mind, within the realm of thought, everything is (or rather: seems) possible...
Outside of the mind, with no thought arising, possibilities are of no concern - there is neither something nor nothing - no explanation and no example necessary or even requested.
As such, all examples I can offer are thought up ideas - one just as contestable as the other... there is as such no benefit in providing a specific example.

It would be like asking for a way out of the playground while, at the same time, insisting to keep on playing with all its toys, hoping that one of these toys will eventually eject you from the playground ... its not going to work ... the only thing that will work is to stop playing all together ...
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:42 am I still have to read all of the posts you have just made but accept most of what you have said here
Some of it I do not really understand but shall just have to see if you will provide any clarification
Can you see the catch22 predicament here?

I am not readily going to provide clarification for what I do not yet know needs clarifying.

So, we will just have to wait and see if you come up with any clarifying questions for what you do not yet understand.

Good to see you back by the way.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Advocate »

[quote=AlexW post_id=481206 time=1606087151 user_id=15862]
Within the mind, within the realm of thought, everything is (or rather: seems) possible...
[/quote]

Good catch with "seems" It also seems that we have free will, which cannot be the case. The mind can only conceive that which it has previously experienced, but that doesn't mean you can only conceive of a particular person after you've met them, for example, it just means you have to remix previous experiences to ground your expectations. We can only conceive of sets of attributes we've previously experienced, but that covers almost everything.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:50 pm
I can't respond to all of the linked post because it would require literal proof that I cannot simply present without a step-by-step reconstruction.

What I've done on my own so far is to develop a set theory but by using only one 'constant': the empty set, as referencing "nothing" OR any possible univeral unkown. Then we don't have to question whether absolute nothing exists.

For instance, imagine that for ANYTHING we conceive or discuss, that this can be encapsulated inside some closed container. The container is just a kind of pointer-to what is inside. The container doesn't have to be real but given we CAN at least agree that the idea is sensible (that 'containers' exist), we then imagine that at the most foundational level, the box that contains 'nothing' (absolute or relative) would be the smallest most atomic element.

We cannot open this box/container because the idea is itself an 'absolute', where "absolute" can be defined as anything that is so unique that it cannot share the properties of anything else. We can only then 'point-to' this atomic idea of nothing by asserting a container (or 'set') that we deem is 'empty'.
However, to NOT bias ourselves, IF absolutely nothing is NOT elemental, then whatever IS, is still in this unopenable container.

The container of this idea can be represented as "()" where we just treat the container itself as 'real' even though it may not be pointing-to anything. Then, we assume that we cannot rule out the possibility that absolutely anyting and everything is real in Totality, where "Totality" is just the label pointer-to that which contains all. In this case, since we are in this container by meaning, we cannot normally represent this as 'containable'. But if you INVERT this idea, this is INDIFFERENT to assuming that box which is perfectly and absolutely 'empty'. In fact, if this is hard to imagine, reverse the process of starting with a container that holds this 'Absolute Nothing'. Then imagine inverting it, like turning one's socks inside out. All of everything would be inside this container.

Thus, this is my meaning of Absolutely Nothing and why it is useful to use. As long as there is ANYTHING at all, we can label this set AS "Totality" if you feel only comfortable with finite things. Then, as we discover more, we just imagine regenerating the definition of 'Totality' to include that.

Does this make sense? If so, I will open that separate thread I proposed so as to not conflict with the present one and to present my theory step by step from this. If you still do not accept this, I cannot speak further on it knowing that I'm wasting my breathe. Just let me know. I'm not going to speak further on this here otherwise.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 7:49 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am Given that we are 'something', if you assume that 'nothing' is not real. We have...

Something == Something OR Nothing
What do the 'double equal' symbols mean, to you, here?

Why IF someone else ASSUMES that 'nothing' is not real, then how and why does this, to you, then mean
Something == Something OR Nothing
The double equal signs are common computer programming of expressing logical equality as a comparison. The single equal signs in programming refer to ASSIGNMENT. That is, the expression "x = x +1" means take whatever x means last and add one to it. The 'x' on the left gets "assigned" the operation on the right.

By contrast, X == X asserts that the logical meaning of each side is identical. So for...

Something == Something OR Nothing

...this statement means that given 'nothing' is always able to be added infinitely to anything, then it is always true that if you have "something", the right side of this comparison is always true if the left side is also true. In propositional logic, the rule related to this is called, "OR-introduction" and states that if you know that something is 'true', then you can introduce anything else as possibly true OR false along with what you already know is true and the statement would still be correct. An example of application of this in math is the rule,

1 = 1 + 0

The plus sign happens to be used in logic for 'or' by the way, and 'and' is like multiplying. Note that this is also true in pattern:

0 = 0 x 1

Basically, if it is true that I exist, I would still exist even if something else is false alongside me:

"Scott exists" == "Scott exists" OR "the world is about to end"

Even if the world is not about to end, the complete right side is still true because at least one of the two things 'or'-ed together is true.


I am not going to bother attempting to respond to the rest because it only exhausts me when some prior answer to a question you have should allow you to answer them in context. Perhaps you could start asking only one question at a time. Pick one that is a gateway question because other questions dependant upon it collapse if you cannot agree to the response to it.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:26 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:18 pm
Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:03 pm Things are sets of attributes and boundary conditions. A thing with no attributes would be nothing, butt also not a thing, so useless. "Lack of x" is a definitive set and cannot apply to a lack of attributes. Nothing doesn't mean anything but lack of something specific according to why you're talking about it.
I have a definitive proof THAT the state of 'nothing' itself is the only 'thing' that we can deduce reality to on an elementary scale.
I have a definitive proof THAT the state of 'nothing' AND the state of 'something else', combined, is the only 'thing' that we can deduce reality to on an elementary scale.

So, WHY the apparent conflict between your 'definitive proof' and my 'definitive proof'?
Note that "OR" in logic means that either one, the other, OR BOTH is true. "And" in logic is the intersection of what they share in common. So "nothing AND something" == "nothing"

which is identical in meaning that

"something OR nothing" == "something" [see my prior post to you for clarification. Note how this was answered before? This is why I cannot answer all your questions. The answer to some latter question lacks a need to respond to if it is dependent on an earlier one.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by AlexW »

Advocate wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:05 am Good catch with "seems" It also seems that we have free will, which cannot be the case. The mind can only conceive that which it has previously experienced, but that doesn't mean you can only conceive of a particular person after you've met them, for example, it just means you have to remix previous experiences to ground your expectations. We can only conceive of sets of attributes we've previously experienced, but that covers almost everything.
Yes... its a bit like playing Lego... you have a certain set of basic building blocks, you learn how to recognise them and stick them together when you are very young - later on you build castles and spaceships out of them...
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:26 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 3:27 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:42 pm

How can one argue..who would one argue with if there is nothing known of the other side. How can one have a one sided argument?
I'm hoping you share the meaning of "argument" to be "the formal set of premises that demonstrate a distinct conclusion" (a 'logical' argument).

Under this assumption, obviously one cannot infer THAT this could not be the case should they no longer be alive to judge. But you can infer this from life inductively from experiencing what you define in common with other living things that you see be 'born' and/or 'die'. That is, you 'extend' your deduced experience of others being born and die to your own life. Note that IF we live beyond this life to some other form of life while maintainng the ability to look back, when you 'die', this may be provable TO YOU, should you pop into another world suddenly upon your perception of death. This too can be questioned. But the point about what you DEFINE about something you perceive outside/beyond yourself as having beginnings and ends, at least suggest it POSSIBLE to be true of Totality, even if not necessarily true. The possibility as presented in sample justly assure you THAT it cannot be determined NOT-POSSIBLE, as some above assert.
It is NOT POSSIBLE, logically nor empirically, for Universe/Totality/Everything/ALL-THERE-IS to have a beginning nor an end. This is because of both what the Universe/et cetera is made up of and because of how 'It' works.

This, of course, is True until a logically sound and valid argument is formed, which could prove otherwise.

Because of causality, itself, a beginning or an ending of Totality/et cetera, Itself, is both logically and physically/empirically IMPOSSIBLE.
You forget that I conditioned the statements about origins. I already had extensive discussions with you on this when discussing 'walls' in three coinciding threads about possible exhausted positions of spacial barriers. [walls at the begging, end, or inbetween] I already argued that you cannot literally use a scientific argument about the opposing ends. But to assume that there IS NO ends also would require proof, something that you cannot do. We just cannot use science to argue about them. Rather, we need logic to 'measure' the possibilities and NOT draw certain conclusions in absense of knowledge. So the default should be to assume absolutely nothing, which is equivalent logically to assuming everything possible. Then we try to narrow this down when attempting to determine what is true locally (in our own particular reality at present).
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:05 am
AlexW wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:19 am Within the mind, within the realm of thought, everything is (or rather: seems) possible...
Good catch with "seems" It also seems that we have free will, which cannot be the case. The mind can only conceive that which it has previously experienced, but that doesn't mean you can only conceive of a particular person after you've met them, for example, it just means you have to remix previous experiences to ground your expectations. We can only conceive of sets of attributes we've previously experienced, but that covers almost everything.
This is a PRIME EXAMPLE, literally, of just HOW the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK. (Which will be explained and become MUCH CLEARER, later on.)
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:21 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:50 pm
I can't respond to all of the linked post because it would require literal proof that I cannot simply present without a step-by-step reconstruction.

What I've done on my own so far is to develop a set theory but by using only one 'constant': the empty set, as referencing "nothing" OR any possible univeral unkown. Then we don't have to question whether absolute nothing exists.
ANY 'theory' is, more or less, just a GUESS of what COULD BE. I much prefer to just look at what IS only, instead.

So, your 'set theory', which you have developed, on your own, is not what is actually and necessarily true, right, and correct. I will, however, just concentrate on and use what IS actually True, Right, and Correct.

The, so called, "empty set", as referencing "nothing" exists, BUT ONLY in a limited 'space' [but not in the 'space', which you imagine]. There exists 'absolutely nothing' within a limited distance, but obviously 'absolutely nothing' does not, can not, and could NEVER EXIST. This is because of how causality actually works.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:21 pm For instance, imagine that for ANYTHING we conceive or discuss, that this can be encapsulated inside some closed container. The container is just a kind of pointer-to what is inside. The container doesn't have to be real but given we CAN at least agree that the idea is sensible (that 'containers' exist), we then imagine that at the most foundational level, the box that contains 'nothing' (absolute or relative) would be the smallest most atomic element.
But an 'atomic element' would be made of actual matter, and there is NOTHING to suggest that the smallest particle of matter is a "container", containing 'nothing'. In fact, it could be argued that the smallest particle of matter does NOT contain nothing, at all. So, from this perspective, at the most foundational, or most fundamental, level there is NO box that contains 'nothing', because what (actually) IS the smallest most atomic element IS solid matter and NOT a 'container' at all.

'Trying to' imagine, conceive, or discuss, a 'container', and/or what is inside that container or not, in relation the Universe, Itself, is just 'trying to' limited 'THAT' what IS NOT limited at all.

How about we LOOK AT and DISCUSS what actually EXISTS, and NOT 'try to' imagine what exists?

What EXISTS is 'space' AND 'matter'. This is, quite simply, the Universe, Itself. These two things is what the Universe is fundamentally made up of, and it is because of these two things COEXISTING how the Universe actually works. This is all EXTREMELY VERY SIMPLE and EASY.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:21 pm We cannot open this box/container because the idea is itself an 'absolute', where "absolute" can be defined as anything that is so unique that it cannot share the properties of anything else.
What I observer happening here is 'you' just 'trying to' "justify" your 'theory', which you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, right, and correct.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:21 pm We can only then 'point-to' this atomic idea of nothing by asserting a container (or 'set') that we deem is 'empty'.
You are ABSOLUTELY FREE to do this and IMAGINE or dream of what COULD BE, and thus what MIGHT BE the case. But, I MUCH PREFER to just look at what actually exists, and this what (actually) IS the case.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:21 pm However, to NOT bias ourselves, IF absolutely nothing is NOT elemental, then whatever IS, is still in this unopenable container.
You have ALREADY biased "YOUR" 'self', because of and through YOUR ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.

But, 'absolutely nothing' IS elemental, in many ways.
There is NO 'container'.
Absolutely nothing is limited though.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:21 pm The container of this idea can be represented as "()" where we just treat the container itself as 'real' even though it may not be pointing-to anything. Then, we assume that we cannot rule out the possibility that absolutely anyting and everything is real in Totality, where "Totality" is just the label pointer-to that which contains all.
If you just want to LOOK AT 'ALL' or 'Totality' and discuss this, then there is absolutely NO need to imagine nor reference ANY 'container' AT ALL. Just say 'Everything' if that is what you want to discuss.

Obviously, Everything includes ALL the labeled 'things', which just as obviously includes the word 'nothing', which just references 'no thing', which is what EXISTS and what IS 'needed'.

Obviously, the Universe is NOT made up of just One solid piece of matter.
There are MANY pieces of matter.
What separates these pieces of matter?
Obviously 'space' with is completely devoid of ANY thing.
This empty 'space' is as fundamental to the Universe, Itself, as 'matter' is.

This 'area' we call 'the Universe', which literally references One, as in ALL-THERE-IS, Totality, and/or Everything, could NOT be 'contained'. So, 'trying to' imagine or conceive of a 'container' is just limiting, or putting a boundary on, 'THAT', which is NOT 'containable'.

But this 'limiting/compartmentalizing' is just EXACTLY how the brain operates.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:21 pm In this case, since we are in this container by meaning, we cannot normally represent this as 'containable'. But if you INVERT this idea, this is INDIFFERENT to assuming that box which is perfectly and absolutely 'empty'. In fact, if this is hard to imagine, reverse the process of starting with a container that holds this 'Absolute Nothing'. Then imagine inverting it, like turning one's socks inside out. All of everything would be inside this container.
But WHY do this?

WHY NOT just LOOK AT what (actually) EXISTS, and thus what (actually) IS, INSTEAD?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:21 pm Thus, this is my meaning of Absolutely Nothing and why it is useful to use. As long as there is ANYTHING at all, we can label this set AS "Totality" if you feel only comfortable with finite things. Then, as we discover more, we just imagine regenerating the definition of 'Totality' to include that.
I am NOT the one who feels "comfortable" with "finite things".

In case you have NOT YET NOTICED I have been saying ALL ALONG that Totality/Everything/ALL, and ALL-THERE-IS INCLUDES 'absolute nothing'. The topic HAS TO BE this way, that is; If we REALLY want to LOOK AT and INCLUDE what IS actually True, Right, AND Correct.

Have you not been aware that we have been, more or less, saying the same thing here, in this regard to Totality, Itself?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:21 pm Does this make sense?
What makes sense, to me here, is that you are 'trying to' find things that would support some 'theory' of yours, which "you have developed".
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:21 pm If so, I will open that separate thread I proposed so as to not conflict with the present one and to present my theory step by step from this.
This might come in very handy.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:21 pm If you still do not accept this, I cannot speak further on it knowing that I'm wasting my breathe.
How EXACTLY does one "waste their breathe" by WRITING words?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:21 pm Just let me know. I'm not going to speak further on this here otherwise.
You do whatever you feel like doing.

By the way, I can and do accept SOME of what you have written here but NOT ALL. Like, for example, I accept that Totality includes 'absolute nothing' , but I do not accept that using the word 'container' here helps in anyway.

So, what part EXACTLY were you meaning when you used the words "If you still do not accept THIS"?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:49 pm
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 7:49 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am Given that we are 'something', if you assume that 'nothing' is not real. We have...

Something == Something OR Nothing
What do the 'double equal' symbols mean, to you, here?

Why IF someone else ASSUMES that 'nothing' is not real, then how and why does this, to you, then mean
Something == Something OR Nothing
The double equal signs are common computer programming of expressing logical equality as a comparison. The single equal signs in programming refer to ASSIGNMENT. That is, the expression "x = x +1" means take whatever x means last and add one to it. The 'x' on the left gets "assigned" the operation on the right.

By contrast, X == X asserts that the logical meaning of each side is identical. So for...

Something == Something OR Nothing
Okay, this is how it appeared to mean to me, and now that you have clarified this, then these double equal signs clearly do NOT work with the other one you wrote.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:49 pm ...this statement means that given 'nothing' is always able to be added infinitely to anything, then it is always true that if you have "something", the right side of this comparison is always true if the left side is also true. In propositional logic, the rule related to this is called, "OR-introduction" and states that if you know that something is 'true', then you can introduce anything else as possibly true OR false along with what you already know is true and the statement would still be correct. An example of application of this in math is the rule,

1 = 1 + 0

The plus sign happens to be used in logic for 'or' by the way, and 'and' is like multiplying. Note that this is also true in pattern:

0 = 0 x 1

Basically, if it is true that I exist, I would still exist even if something else is false alongside me:

"Scott exists" == "Scott exists" OR "the world is about to end"

Even if the world is not about to end, the complete right side is still true because at least one of the two things 'or'-ed together is true.


I am not going to bother attempting to respond to the rest because it only exhausts me when some prior answer to a question you have should allow you to answer them in context.
If this is correct, then the answer I arrive at is there is absolutely NO actual difference between the two.

But your prior answer still NEVER allows me to answer, "How did YOU arrive at that conclusion?" question, nor most of the other of my questions asked, TO YOU.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:21 pm Perhaps you could start asking only one question at a time.
I ALREADY did that, and it is the only way I possibly could do it.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:21 pm Pick one that is a gateway question because other questions dependant upon it collapse if you cannot agree to the response to it.
If I ask just a VERY SIMPLE CLARIFY QUESTION like; 'How did you arrive at ...?", then these sort of questions are NOT necessarily answered by previous questions.

If you are NOT YET AWARE there is NO single one question, which is a "gateway" to answering other questions asked to "others".

If one were to look back over at ALL of the other questions that I asked you in that post, then what could be clearly seen is that just about all of them are NOT related directly to the first question, and that there could not be a, so called, "gateway" question. Unless, of course, you could and will provide one. Considering the fact is that ONLY 'you' KNOW what the answers are to ALL of the questions posed to you in that posed, then this could infer that ONLY 'you' could and would KNOW a "gateway" question, which answered could answer ALL the following questions posed. So, if you would like to provide an example of a "gateway" question, then I would love to SEE it.

Also, and by the way, IF and WHEN I ask 'you' a question, which entails a 'to you' response, like for example, the actual FIRST (gateway?) question I did ask you, which was; What do the 'double equal' symbols mean, to you, here?, then there is NO possible way that I could not NOT agree to the response you give, that is; IF you are Honest.

So, what appears to be happening here is you were just 'trying to' make up some sort of excuse for not answering the rest of my clarifying questions.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:25 am
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:26 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:18 pm
I have a definitive proof THAT the state of 'nothing' itself is the only 'thing' that we can deduce reality to on an elementary scale.
I have a definitive proof THAT the state of 'nothing' AND the state of 'something else', combined, is the only 'thing' that we can deduce reality to on an elementary scale.

So, WHY the apparent conflict between your 'definitive proof' and my 'definitive proof'?
Note that "OR" in logic means that either one, the other, OR BOTH is true. "And" in logic is the intersection of what they share in common. So "nothing AND something" == "nothing"

which is identical in meaning that

"something OR nothing" == "something" [see my prior post to you for clarification. Note how this was answered before? This is why I cannot answer all your questions. The answer to some latter question lacks a need to respond to if it is dependent on an earlier one.
I think you MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD, completely, my clarifying question. This might be because you are concentrating on some 'thing' else? The word 'OR' was NOT used ANYWHERE in your post NOR in my reply to your post. So, WHY did you talk about the 'OR' word here?

You said that you have 'definitive proof' of some 'thing'. I said that I have 'definitive proof' of the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said you had proof of.

I then asked, WHY is there an apparent conflict? (Obviously we can NOT 'both' have 'definitive proof' for our OPPOSITE claims. Or, can we?)
Post Reply