Then let's use the following definition (3) below (minus 'God' or letting Totality include this if it were true):Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 8:28 amThe term 'absolute' is very contentious within philosophy.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.
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].
STEP ONE: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"]
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
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
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
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
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
0 = 0 & 1
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.