Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 8:28 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:17 am "Absolutes" throw people off. They are just the most general and unique form(ula) of something.

"Absolute Nothing" doesn't have to be true to be true & not-true. It is inconsistent and so you may ask how can it mean anything 'real' right?

Absolute Nothingness is definable as "Absolutely Something AND Absolute Nothing" [definition and apriori or tautological]. As to whether the literal nature of Nothingness COULD be possible or not is irrelevant. I didn't finish the argument to its more proper expression as a CONDITIONAL. It is the conditional that is true. In that case, it doesn't rely on ANY actual truth of the antecedent. Note too that even empirical claims are assumptions in an argument. They are 'guests' of the system which only validates them.
The term 'absolute' is very contentious within philosophy.
Because it can be interpret as a relative-absolute [absolute temperature, monarchy, etc.] or an absolutely-absolute [God which is totally unconditional or things-by-themselves].
Then let's use the following definition (3) below (minus 'God' or letting Totality include this if it were true):
Absolute Re: PHILOSOPHY
(noun: absolute; plural noun: absolutes)

(1) a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
"good and evil are presented as absolutes"

(2) something that exists without being dependent on anything else.

(3) ultimate reality; God.
[Google's lead definition by searching, "Absolute definition"]
STEP ONE:
Would you agree that the Law of Identity is 'absolutely' true in consistent Worlds?

Given you have 'empirical' evidence of at least Something existing, would you not be confident in yourself that Something is Absolutely true?
And if so, that Absolute truth must entail Absolutely Something?

I'll presume you answered YES to the above. Let us use '1' to represent what is true in general then. This should be fine considering the meaning of 'something' means at least ONE thing is true. Let S = Absolutely Something. Then,

S = 1

STEP TWO:
The law of excluded middle is "X or not-X". If we assume this absolutely true, as I guess you would, and letting "+" be interchangeable to "or",
the law is represented as:

X + not-X = 1, for any X

We can let X = S and thus have,

S + not-S = S

STEP THREE:
Since X = X [generalized Law of Identity] then the above is also 'reflexively',

S = S + not-S

...and using '1' for absolute Truth, and '0' for absolutely non-Truth, we see replacing the truth values in these,
1 = 1 + 0

STEP FOUR:
The "Law of Non-contradiction" is "It is absolutely false that we accept "Anything true = X & not-X" where (X & not-X) is the 'contradiction'. Since we use '0' to represent Absolutely not-True, and you believe that Absolutely Nothing IS absolutely false (not-true), then we have

X & not-X = 0, for any X
or reflexively,

0 = X & not-X

Since Nothing is assumed to be unable to exist absolutely, Absolute Nothing is identical to Absolute false (not true anywhere absolutely), then

Absolutely Nothing = 0 = X & not-X, for any X

Letting X = 0, this is the same as

0 = 0 & not-0

or

0 = 0 & 1

STEP FIVE:
Let X = Absolutely Nothing and thus not-X = Absolutely Something. Then

Absolutely Nothing = Absolutely Nothing AND Absolutely Something

...or simply, not-S = not-S & S

It is not important that you think that Absolutely Nothing is non-existent because it precisely means the above regardless. The form (__) = (__) just means that the left hand side is identical IN MEANING TO the right hand side, not that the terms require being true. However, since you agreed that at least Something is true which assures us Absolutely Something is true, then that statement I just proved is also Absolutely true or you are wrong that even one thing exists.

This happens to just be a form that defines 'contradiction', the right-hand side and is the "Law of non-Contradiction" where we are referencing "consistent" universes. But Totality is "inconsistent" as a whole. This is because it contains all that is absolutely true and false but separates the 'false' into "inconsistent universes".

To me, given that we cannot find a source for 'causation', then this absolute truth about the ultimate cause is itself 'contradiction' if and only if you begin with Absolutely Nothing as Absolutely true at that origin.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6694
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:27 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 8:28 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:17 am "Absolutes" throw people off. They are just the most general and unique form(ula) of something.

"Absolute Nothing" doesn't have to be true to be true & not-true. It is inconsistent and so you may ask how can it mean anything 'real' right?

Absolute Nothingness is definable as "Absolutely Something AND Absolute Nothing" [definition and apriori or tautological]. As to whether the literal nature of Nothingness COULD be possible or not is irrelevant. I didn't finish the argument to its more proper expression as a CONDITIONAL. It is the conditional that is true. In that case, it doesn't rely on ANY actual truth of the antecedent. Note too that even empirical claims are assumptions in an argument. They are 'guests' of the system which only validates them.
The term 'absolute' is very contentious within philosophy.
Because it can be interpret as a relative-absolute [absolute temperature, monarchy, etc.] or an absolutely-absolute [God which is totally unconditional or things-by-themselves].
Then let's use the following definition (3) below (minus 'God' or letting Totality include this if it were true):
Absolute Re: PHILOSOPHY
(noun: absolute; plural noun: absolutes)

(1) a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
"good and evil are presented as absolutes"

(2) something that exists without being dependent on anything else.

(3) ultimate reality; God.
[Google's lead definition by searching, "Absolute definition"]
STEP ONE:
Would you agree that the Law of Identity is 'absolutely' true in consistent Worlds?

Given you have 'empirical' evidence of at least Something existing, would you not be confident in yourself that Something is Absolutely true?
And if so, that Absolute truth must entail Absolutely Something?

I'll presume you answered YES to the above. Let us use '1' to represent what is true in general then. This should be fine considering the meaning of 'something' means at least ONE thing is true. Let S = Absolutely Something. Then,

S = 1

STEP TWO:
The law of excluded middle is "X or not-X". If we assume this absolutely true, as I guess you would, and letting "+" be interchangeable to "or",
the law is represented as:

X + not-X = 1, for any X

We can let X = S and thus have,

S + not-S = S

STEP THREE:
Since X = X [generalized Law of Identity] then the above is also 'reflexively',

S = S + not-S

...and using '1' for absolute Truth, and '0' for absolutely non-Truth, we see replacing the truth values in these,
1 = 1 + 0

STEP FOUR:
The "Law of Non-contradiction" is "It is absolutely false that we accept "Anything true = X & not-X" where (X & not-X) is the 'contradiction'. Since we use '0' to represent Absolutely not-True, and you believe that Absolutely Nothing IS absolutely false (not-true), then we have

X & not-X = 0, for any X
or reflexively,

0 = X & not-X

Since Nothing is assumed to be unable to exist absolutely, Absolute Nothing is identical to Absolute false (not true anywhere absolutely), then

Absolutely Nothing = 0 = X & not-X, for any X

Letting X = 0, this is the same as

0 = 0 & not-0

or

0 = 0 & 1

STEP FIVE:
Let X = Absolutely Nothing and thus not-X = Absolutely Something. Then

Absolutely Nothing = Absolutely Nothing AND Absolutely Something

...or simply, not-S = not-S & S

It is not important that you think that Absolutely Nothing is non-existent because it precisely means the above regardless. The form (__) = (__) just means that the left hand side is identical IN MEANING TO the right hand side, not that the terms require being true. However, since you agreed that at least Something is true which assures us Absolutely Something is true, then that statement I just proved is also Absolutely true or you are wrong that even one thing exists.

This happens to just be a form that defines 'contradiction', the right-hand side and is the "Law of non-Contradiction" where we are referencing "consistent" universes. But Totality is "inconsistent" as a whole. This is because it contains all that is absolutely true and false but separates the 'false' into "inconsistent universes".

To me, given that we cannot find a source for 'causation', then this absolute truth about the ultimate cause is itself 'contradiction' if and only if you begin with Absolutely Nothing as Absolutely true at that origin.


Both "nothing" and "something" are thus equivocated through the middle term of "absolute".
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:48 am Both "nothing" and "something" are thus equivocated through the middle term of "absolute".
Not really, well maybe, well sort of?. :?

Why I used it was to argue for Totality, not necessarily this universe. So "absolute" is used to speak about what is always 'true' of Totality even if that is 'contradictory' because I think Totality doesn't have a mind (like some God) and would thus only present worlds within it regardless of whether many (or most) would remain contradictory. That is, I think the "consistent" worlds are ONLY a subset of all possible worlds and I reasoned from inside a consistent one in the same way Turing first set up a Universal machine that was 'consistent' to show that you cannot have consistency without inconsistencies on a greater set of things beyond the range of consistent logics (and thus are 'incomplete').
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5814
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:27 am
Absolute=
(3) ultimate reality; God.
[Google's lead definition by searching, "Absolute definition"]
If this absolute is ultimate reality similar to God, then such an absolute is totally unconditional, i.e. a thing existing as thing-by-itself [or thing-in-itself] independent of all other things.
This 3 would be an absolutely-absolute, not a relative absolute.
STEP ONE:
Would you agree that the Law of Identity is 'absolutely' true in consistent Worlds?
But,
The 'Law of Identity' is absolutely true as law ONLY within the framework and system [FS] of classical logic. There are other logical FS which do not agree with the above.
Therefore whilst it is absolutely-true conditioned within the logical FS, such as absoluteness is merely a relative-absolute.

For example, absolute temperature is only an absolute that is relative to the scientific framework, it cannot be a standalone absolute by itself without reference to the scientific framework.
Another is "absolute-monarchy" which is relative to the political framework and system.
Given you have 'empirical' evidence of at least Something existing, would you not be confident in yourself that Something is Absolutely true?
And if so, that Absolute truth must entail Absolutely Something?
I'll presume you answered YES to the above.
I don't the term 'absolute' is necessary here.
If something existing is true, the best answer is, it is true as conditioned and justified via the scientific framework and system.
Since it is conditioned within a FS, it cannot be an absolutely-absolute truth in the ultimate sense. It is thus merely a relative-absolute at best.

If you are to use the term absolute in this case, it is can only be a relative-absolute like absolute-temperature which is only an absolute that is relative to the scientific framework,
It cannot be not an absolutely-absolute, i.e. thing-by-itself independent of everything else.

Re your argument;
Since your intended use for the term absolute [as 3 defined above] is with reference to an absolutely-absolute, i.e. a thing-by-itself [thing-in-itself] that is totally unconditional,
what you are proposing subsequently, i.e. relative-absolute,
they will not follow, thus reaching an invalid argument.

If that is the general approach of your detail argument, the following conclusion is not valid.

You cannot conflate or equivocate an absolutely-absolute [your definition 3 above] with your subsequent relative-absolute or vice-versa.

Thus I will not go into the details unless your overall syllogism is valid.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5814
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:27 am To me, given that we cannot find a source for 'causation', then this absolute truth about the ultimate cause is itself 'contradiction' if and only if you begin with Absolutely Nothing as Absolutely true at that origin.
The more appropriate question is why are humans so invested and aggressive in trying to determine ultimate cause and the origin?

You should consider the more realistic answer to the 'why' of the above desperation to find the ultimate cause, i.e. it is purely psychological, i.e. evolutionary psychology.

Remembered you mentioned Michael Shermer, if you read his book,
"Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time"
you will get a clue why people are so desperate to jump [blindly and hastily] on what is the ultimate cause or origin of reality.
Age
Posts: 6247
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:28 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:48 am Both "nothing" and "something" are thus equivocated through the middle term of "absolute".
Not really, well maybe, well sort of?. :?

Why I used it was to argue for Totality, not necessarily this universe.
How many 'Universes' do you think or believe there is?

Why say "this", as in "this universe"? Who does the word "this" relate to?

By definition the word 'Universe', literally, means Totality/Everything. So, using this definition there can NOT be a "this universe", as though there was another one.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:28 am So "absolute" is used to speak about what is always 'true' of Totality even if that is 'contradictory' because I think Totality doesn't have a mind (like some God) and would thus only present worlds within it regardless of whether many (or most) would remain contradictory. That is, I think the "consistent" worlds are ONLY a subset of all possible worlds and I reasoned from inside a consistent one in the same way Turing first set up a Universal machine that was 'consistent' to show that you cannot have consistency without inconsistencies on a greater set of things beyond the range of consistent logics (and thus are 'incomplete').
Age
Posts: 6247
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:27 am To me, given that we cannot find a source for 'causation', then this absolute truth about the ultimate cause is itself 'contradiction' if and only if you begin with Absolutely Nothing as Absolutely true at that origin.
Why do you, continue, to ASSUME that there was an 'origin'?

Also, thee ACTUAL source for 'causation' has ALREADY been found, and is ALREADY now well understood.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6694
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:28 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:48 am Both "nothing" and "something" are thus equivocated through the middle term of "absolute".
Not really, well maybe, well sort of?. :?

Why I used it was to argue for Totality, not necessarily this universe. So "absolute" is used to speak about what is always 'true' of Totality even if that is 'contradictory' because I think Totality doesn't have a mind (like some God) and would thus only present worlds within it regardless of whether many (or most) would remain contradictory. That is, I think the "consistent" worlds are ONLY a subset of all possible worlds and I reasoned from inside a consistent one in the same way Turing first set up a Universal machine that was 'consistent' to show that you cannot have consistency without inconsistencies on a greater set of things beyond the range of consistent logics (and thus are 'incomplete').
Totality would have within it consciousness.

Dually absolute would be a middle term that describes both nothing and everything thus causing an equivocation through that context alone. It would be equivalent to saying both a brick and rose are equal through the color red.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:54 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:27 am
Absolute=
(3) ultimate reality; God.
[Google's lead definition by searching, "Absolute definition"]
If this absolute is ultimate reality similar to God, then such an absolute is totally unconditional, i.e. a thing existing as thing-by-itself [or thing-in-itself] independent of all other things.
This 3 would be an absolutely-absolute, not a relative absolute.
STEP ONE:
Would you agree that the Law of Identity is 'absolutely' true in consistent Worlds?
But,
The 'Law of Identity' is absolutely true as law ONLY within the framework and system [FS] of classical logic. There are other logical FS which do not agree with the above.
Therefore whilst it is absolutely-true conditioned within the logical FS, such as absoluteness is merely a relative-absolute.

For example, absolute temperature is only an absolute that is relative to the scientific framework, it cannot be a standalone absolute by itself without reference to the scientific framework.
Another is "absolute-monarchy" which is relative to the political framework and system.
What I ended up posting differed from an original that expanded on using 'relative-absolute' versus 'absolute-absolute'. But these are not well defined.
Definiton (3) IS the 'absolute-absolute' type (as you noticed) but lacks the meaning from (1) expressing uniquess via, "without relation to other things".

All I use the terms describing absolutes are the ULTIMATE general forms to which, in Anselm's misappropriation to 'god' was, "that which no greater can be conceived." There is how the term God fits in with defintion (3): by defining 'God' as a static secular thing, like the Universe, or Totality. I opted to use 'absolute' to represent the highest general classes to which is NOT a 'member' of anything greater. Otherwise, one may confuse the relative universals, like our particular Universal, as all there is without proof. If you remove the 'absolutes', the logic still remains but cannot point out how the extreme general reality, I label, "Totality", is itself INCONSISTENT. That is, since there is nothing 'greater' than Totality, by my intended defintion, All that exists AND all that doesn't exist are MEMBERS within the class, Totality.

With reference to using the classical logic, I purposely chose a "consistent" logic that is most agreed to. All other systems involve allowances for inconsistency, something I use the consistent logic to demonstrate. We have to use consistent logic if even to demonstrate THAT Totality is actually 'inconsistent'. By starting out with any 'inconsistent logic' we cannot prove anything at all, even though Totality is rooted in it. My argument CAN be used as a supporting justification FOR all the other systems, just as the Incompleteness theorem used a complete system to show that you cannot find a universally perfect machine/logic that can cover all truths.

The logic I used is sound and based ONLY on consistent logics that are foundations to all other types.
Given you have 'empirical' evidence of at least Something existing, would you not be confident in yourself that Something is Absolutely true?
And if so, that Absolute truth must entail Absolutely Something?
I'll presume you answered YES to the above.
I don't the term 'absolute' is necessary here.
If something existing is true, the best answer is, it is true as conditioned and justified via the scientific framework and system.
Since it is conditioned within a FS, it cannot be an absolutely-absolute truth in the ultimate sense. It is thus merely a relative-absolute at best.

If you are to use the term absolute in this case, it is can only be a relative-absolute like absolute-temperature which is only an absolute that is relative to the scientific framework,
It cannot be not an absolutely-absolute, i.e. thing-by-itself independent of everything else.

Re your argument;
Since your intended use for the term absolute [as 3 defined above] is with reference to an absolutely-absolute, i.e. a thing-by-itself [thing-in-itself] that is totally unconditional,
what you are proposing subsequently, i.e. relative-absolute,
they will not follow, thus reaching an invalid argument.

If that is the general approach of your detail argument, the following conclusion is not valid.

You cannot conflate or equivocate an absolutely-absolute [your definition 3 above] with your subsequent relative-absolute or vice-versa.

Thus I will not go into the details unless your overall syllogism is valid.
My logic is both VALID and sound by the definitions used and is mapped to our empirical real life experiences of classifying things. I have studied various logics and Aristotle's Syllogistic logic used to be thought complete but is now included as a subset of the Propositional and Predicate logics. I also use boolean logic and even know how to extend it for multivariables. I would keep simple and stick with propositional logic and the boolean logic (which deals with truth values uniquely).

I am not adopting Kant's terms nor will delve into Aristotle's Syllogistic logic given it requires a lot more digression just to determine what you know from what I know. We'd also need diagrams to aid in expressing the depth, including things like 'distribution' and other things. But that is a topic for comparative logic studies, not for my specific argument. I can try to demonstrate it in various logic systems you relate to better, just like I partly tried to do above using a mixture of propositional, predicate, and boolean logics.

One last point: I also used the content of the variable terms that relate to logic terms, like that Nothing means "not ONE thing", which mean not-Something. This is why the 'absolute' is effectively useful here. I can use the content's meaning that speaks of the system's logic within a variable term. It is a proof that the system of logic BY Nature is itself inconsistent.

Rather than using 'absolute-absolute' or 'relative-absolute', it is probably better to use something like "perfect absolute" versus "absolute where it is defaulted in meaning that all absolutes are 'relative' children to some other absolute unless it is 'perfect'. In set theory, a similar way of describing their 'subsets' is of the "proper subset" versus the plain inclusive "subset"; Or...all sets are 'classes' but not all classes are sets. Thus, they also use "class" to mean all objects in their system but "proper class" only to strictly refer to the 'absolute' Class that is NOT a member of anything greater.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:06 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:27 am To me, given that we cannot find a source for 'causation', then this absolute truth about the ultimate cause is itself 'contradiction' if and only if you begin with Absolutely Nothing as Absolutely true at that origin.
The more appropriate question is why are humans so invested and aggressive in trying to determine ultimate cause and the origin?

You should consider the more realistic answer to the 'why' of the above desperation to find the ultimate cause, i.e. it is purely psychological, i.e. evolutionary psychology.

Remembered you mentioned Michael Shermer, if you read his book,
"Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time"
you will get a clue why people are so desperate to jump [blindly and hastily] on what is the ultimate cause or origin of reality.
My intentional use of it is for physics, not social-psychology, even if it can be related to those subjects as well. I DO have a reason for this proof with respect to a theory. But I cannot even BEGIN to express a theory without this, even if I might have something of worth to say. [This is frustrating and is looking hopeless.]
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:49 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:28 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:48 am Both "nothing" and "something" are thus equivocated through the middle term of "absolute".
Not really, well maybe, well sort of?. :?

Why I used it was to argue for Totality, not necessarily this universe.
How many 'Universes' do you think or believe there is?

Why say "this", as in "this universe"? Who does the word "this" relate to?

By definition the word 'Universe', literally, means Totality/Everything. So, using this definition there can NOT be a "this universe", as though there was another one.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:28 am So "absolute" is used to speak about what is always 'true' of Totality even if that is 'contradictory' because I think Totality doesn't have a mind (like some God) and would thus only present worlds within it regardless of whether many (or most) would remain contradictory. That is, I think the "consistent" worlds are ONLY a subset of all possible worlds and I reasoned from inside a consistent one in the same way Turing first set up a Universal machine that was 'consistent' to show that you cannot have consistency without inconsistencies on a greater set of things beyond the range of consistent logics (and thus are 'incomplete').
I'm certain I discussed this with you before and it got nowhere. I am discussing something that is INCLUSIVE of all possible worlds. And if you are only postulating this particular universe, you are welcome to remove the terms 'absolute' anywhere. But you would probably NOT treat that which is 'not-true' as being contained IN this Universe, regardless. That is, you no doubt think that if X is not-true, it " X lies outside of this Universe" which would lead to endless contradictions I mean to prevent. A Universe, is, like a 'universal class' which is ONE of a set of many possible worlds. If our world is the ONLY absolute, then we return to some religious justification to express how and why our reality as a whole is so "special".
Impenitent
Posts: 3246
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Impenitent »

better proof - the intersection of the x, y and z axes is (0,0,0)

-Imp
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:52 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:27 am To me, given that we cannot find a source for 'causation', then this absolute truth about the ultimate cause is itself 'contradiction' if and only if you begin with Absolutely Nothing as Absolutely true at that origin.
Why do you, continue, to ASSUME that there was an 'origin'?

Also, thee ACTUAL source for 'causation' has ALREADY been found, and is ALREADY now well understood.
Why do you keep interpreting that I'm asserting this as 'necessary' of this particular universe. The title says that "Absolute Nothing ...exists as an origin" and means that IF we have an 'origin', it has to be Absolutely Nothing. This should be fine for you because it means, given your confined belief to speak only of this particular physical realm, it means in essence that there is NO origin. This would then mean that THIS universe is 'special' though, as I just mentioned above.

For instance, if this is the ONLY world, one Universe, then we have no 'free choices' anywhere and that thus our particlar HISTORY is Absolutely Unique! (See, you can't avoid the term 'absolute' or you end up unclear or foggy about meanings.) If you come to a road where you have an equal choice to turn left as to right, then that would only be an illusion if you thought that whichever options you didn't select was actully 'possible'.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:33 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:28 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:48 am Both "nothing" and "something" are thus equivocated through the middle term of "absolute".
Not really, well maybe, well sort of?. :?

Why I used it was to argue for Totality, not necessarily this universe. So "absolute" is used to speak about what is always 'true' of Totality even if that is 'contradictory' because I think Totality doesn't have a mind (like some God) and would thus only present worlds within it regardless of whether many (or most) would remain contradictory. That is, I think the "consistent" worlds are ONLY a subset of all possible worlds and I reasoned from inside a consistent one in the same way Turing first set up a Universal machine that was 'consistent' to show that you cannot have consistency without inconsistencies on a greater set of things beyond the range of consistent logics (and thus are 'incomplete').
Totality would have within it consciousness.

Dually absolute would be a middle term that describes both nothing and everything thus causing an equivocation through that context alone. It would be equivalent to saying both a brick and rose are equal through the color red.
Yes, you see the nature of 'properties' themselves as being shared as proof that they are not strict 'absolutes' but relative. This is another point why I had to use 'absolutes': a sincere perfect absolute could not even be witnessed or it would have the shared 'property' of having the observer and the observed in the same class. Thus the perfect absolute could be described possibly, but never could be empirically measured.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Impenitent wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:07 pm better proof - the intersection of the x, y and z axes is (0,0,0)

-Imp
You mean to define the 'absolute' state of nothing as identical to the 'relative' or 'arbitrary' selections? By meaning, each and every 'nothing' is identical. I had to use 'absolutes' to discriminate between a unique point in space rather than just any selection. But this is how science would keep it simple without bothering to debate the distinctions. I'm trying to find a linked rationale for physics to logic, like finding a means to turn a theory (which is only tentative) into something absolutely true within all possible worlds non-tentatively (implied by 'absolutes')....like a 'theorem'.
Post Reply