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

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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 31, 2020 2:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 8:51 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:04 am Noted. I am very very aware of the issues regarding those who feel that logic is a mere artificial tool that demands ONLY 'empirical' processes of reasoning. This is restricted to the vast majority of people in all times who believe that ONLY DIRECT witness to something from the senses ALONE are all that is considered 'real'. To me, it is a POLITIC to demand this because it ignores fundamentally that logic itself is LESS sound than those using it to argue for ANYTHING, including the things that people use their senses for.
You need to note "logic" is a weak tool to understand reality. Note Kant's comment on 'logic'.
Fuck the term 'logic' given you cannot agree to the meaning. I'm getting annoyed here given you keep referencing crap that I cannot trust YOUR interpretation on PRECISELY because you cannot understand me here. How can I trust your references if I cannot trust your interpretation of me nor of me to you independent of outside sources?

I cannot seem to use 'logic' without some inappropriate digression on their understanding of the TERM and NOT MY MEANING. So let's use the term MECHANISM. I'm betting that this won't work either and will certainly misrepresent me with respect to others who use "logic" by my understanding.

But lets try. Everything is a 'mechanism'.

All things operate by some process of INPUTS AND OUTPUTS, of which these can also be shared. The term in the all those books by the label I cannot seem to use is "fan", meaning that for any THING, the inputs and outputs collectively. So when I discuss inputs and outputs, I may use fan to mean any 'interface' between some concept or object in mind or reality. [This is useful when thinking of an electronic component, like a chip. They use 'fan' in that it reminds one of some central concept at a point with lines 'fanning' out to represent any and all inputs and outputs.]

All things relate to this regardless of what the subject matter is. We ONLY question 'mechanisms' and ONLY 'question' things at all due to some 'barrier' that prevents us from getting what we want.
All intellectual reflection relates then to some kind of UNKNOWN to which we want to interpret and make sufficient sense of to get through or around some barrier.

I prefer using a 'box' or container to reference this. Think of some closed box to which represents the contents, not the literal container. Then, we might imagine labeling this box to reference what is inside it ARBITRARILY. That is, the label is only a referent, but represents ONLY what this box contains, whether it contains anything or not.

Can you agree to this this far?

[I cannot bother with responding to whatever else you wrote yet. I need to determine first that you UNDERSTAND me, something that I do not see. Then we may get back to whatever extra concerns you still have.]
You are the one who used the term 'logic' without explaining precisely how it relate to your context.
When I referred to the general context [how else] you complained as if it is my fault.
My complain is you are bad at communicating your ideas.
My view is that your present idea [hypothesis] is not tenable and not realistic, that is why it is so difficult for you to get them through to others.
But lets try. Everything is a 'mechanism'.
All things operate by some process of INPUTS AND OUTPUTS, of which these can also be shared.
The above is related to System Theory,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
which is one of my mainstay principle of reality which I quote very often.

Note humans are part and parcel of the whole system of reality which is an open system.

A closed-box system can be defined for some limited context but cannot be applied to reality as all-there-is which is an open system.
Thus I cannot agree with your 'closed-box' context in trying to explain reality as all-there-is.

Btw, from the beginning I was not really interested in your hypothesis for it has no significant benefits for me at all, in contrast to the discussion of Morality which is adding to my database of knowledge.
I was just going along which I thought is for your sake [wasted a lot of my time] not mine.
I would prefer to stop discussing your thesis until I see something significant and striking [in your discussion with others] that could benefit in expanding my database. So far, there is none from you.
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 31, 2020 6:55 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:58 am Try... Everything is a 'mechanism'.
All things operate by some process of INPUTS AND OUTPUTS, of which these can also be shared.
The above is related to System Theory,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
which is one of my mainstay principle of reality which I quote very often.

Note humans are part and parcel of the whole system of reality which is an open system.

A closed-box system can be defined for some limited context but cannot be applied to reality as all-there-is which is an open system.
Thus I cannot agree with your 'closed-box' context in trying to explain reality as all-there-is.

Btw, from the beginning I was not really interested in your hypothesis for it has no significant benefits for me at all, in contrast to the discussion of Morality which is adding to my database of knowledge.
I was just going along which I thought is for your sake [wasted a lot of my time] not mine.
I would prefer to stop discussing your thesis until I see something significant and striking [in your discussion with others] that could benefit in expanding my database. So far, there is none from you.
My background IS 'logic' most significantly and includes scientific methodology!

The 'container' analogy suffices to investigate unknowns and is absolutely necessary for logic AND science as it defines 'variables' and 'constants', whether referencing something closed[finite] or open[infinite] or even indeterminate (like Shrodinger's Cat in the box analogy).

I think this is relevant for you regarding your interpretation of 'morality' as being a real something and "scientifically" validatable when it lacks LESS sense than what you presume my argument on nothing implies! There is more credibility to nothing as exising than there is to something 'evil' or 'good' as existing objectively....unless you are merely being political or religious, both things you are denying. If you actually want to find a means to argue FOR something that is difficult to express or contradictory in essence, this is what should be of interest to your own endeavors. And by learning how to argue without resorting to external issues other than the nature of those communicating is an investment in your own credibility in debating issues.

But I'm fine NOT wasting my time on others where they've made up their minds about me here. So regardless, thanks for the input and good luck on your own interests.
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 31, 2020 8:51 am There is more credibility to nothing as existing than there is to something 'evil' or 'good' as existing objectively....unless you are merely being political or religious, both things you are denying.
1. You misunderstood my stance re moral objectivity.
While I claimed moral facts are objectively "something" real,
that objectivity is based on intersubjective consensus as justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system [similar to the scientific framework and system].
As such there are no moral-facts-in-themselves as with Plato's universals nor they are from a God.

2. In another thread, I agree with,
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

3. In another, reality as all-there-is is in one perspective a meta-hallucination,
Meta-Hallucination versus 'General' Hallucinations.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31536

As such the moral facts that are objectively real as something are ultimately hallucination within a meta-hallucination framework of reality.

So there is a lot of work to reconcile and make senses of 1 with 2&3.
I don't intend to go into the details here.
Belinda
Posts: 4675
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

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

Post by Belinda »

I have decided it is fair to call me a theist or at least a panen -theist , as I believe in original order.
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 31, 2020 10:48 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 8:51 am There is more credibility to nothing as existing than there is to something 'evil' or 'good' as existing objectively....unless you are merely being political or religious, both things you are denying.
1. You misunderstood my stance re moral objectivity.
While I claimed moral facts are objectively "something" real,
that objectivity is based on intersubjective consensus as justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system [similar to the scientific framework and system].
As such there are no moral-facts-in-themselves as with Plato's universals nor they are from a God.

2. In another thread, I agree with,
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

3. In another, reality as all-there-is is in one perspective a meta-hallucination,
Meta-Hallucination versus 'General' Hallucinations.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31536

As such the moral facts that are objectively real as something are ultimately hallucination within a meta-hallucination framework of reality.

So there is a lot of work to reconcile and make senses of 1 with 2&3.
I don't intend to go into the details here.
I just responded to this here: What is Philosophical Objectivity.

From there I point out how you cannot presume anything 'scientifically' objective about morality. You CAN argue logically but are also not aligned with the limitations of logic if you consider morals as able to be 'constant' universally. In contrast, I CAN argue about 'values' regarding "something" or "nothing" because they are not biased to different subjective interpretations beyond verbal disagreement to the definitions involved. This was my point about why my argument of this thread is something appropriately more sound.

I find your use of "moral framework and system" as unclear when defining 'morals' for using intention of the term 'moral' hidden in context of your 'framework' concept. What you are doing is to try to discuss a logical internal reflection of particular morals of yours as extensible to others when all you can do is to discuss them in general without specific values. They cannot be 'objectively real' as you assert without dropping the intention of what particular morals are. Then you may as well be discussing non-emotive 'values', like 'true' or 'false' rather than morals that refer to emotional ones like 'good' or 'bad'.
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 »

Belinda wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 11:03 am I have decided it is fair to call me a theist or at least a panen -theist , as I believe in original order.
I missed your context. Did you accidentally post here thinking you were responding elsewhere?
Belinda
Posts: 4675
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

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

Post by Belinda »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:13 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 11:03 am I have decided it is fair to call me a theist or at least a panen -theist , as I believe in original order.
I missed your context. Did you accidentally post here thinking you were responding elsewhere?
Your discussion, Scott , is about ultimate origin, is it not?
Atla
Posts: 3190
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:16 am You are hooked with some bias: that you assume 'causation' and 'time' as required as a source. You are assuming that 'nothing cannot CAUSE anything'. But what of 'time' itself? You can't use the term 'cause' because we are stuck with justification as it relates to time. But then what CAN we use? One that the logicians use that I try but is less understood by the average person, is apriori which means, "without prior". The term, 'prior', still begs time and so they opted to assert that which has NO time and so is a "source" without concern to time.

If you cannot get your mind to accept this, then I cannot help you (nor others) understand me here. This simple concept is real on the basis of Totality. It doesn't even have the concept 'true' nor 'false' given it contains this such that there is NO outside. Not even 'nothing' exists outside the meaning of 'Totality'. I know that throughout time most people could not understand this and it is basically 'tabooed' in a worse way than the most absurd religious beliefs that POSIT special existences biased to human purpose.
I don't think I have that bias, I see existence as atemporal. (Time is probably a circular dimension of our universe, illusory in a sense.) I meant that not even outside time can nothing cause something, obviously.
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 »

Belinda wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:39 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:13 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 11:03 am I have decided it is fair to call me a theist or at least a panen -theist , as I believe in original order.
I missed your context. Did you accidentally post here thinking you were responding elsewhere?
Your discussion, Scott , is about ultimate origin, is it not?
I'll take that as a 'yes', then. I don't know what to respond to the 'theist' point other than that to point out that when I use the word, "Totality", it is meant to be most inclusive and thus whatever is true or false about your religious 'source' is included in this term. That is, it is this Universe and all other possible realities that are real whether we are able to discern them as such or not is part of "Totality" and that I include 'nothing' (or 'absolute nothing') as fitting here. It doesn't require being 'true' either.

And given you trust there is 'order', at least from where we are, this induced concept about patterns is fair to say that it at least exists in SOME part of Totality.

Is this fair to use for your purpose here so far?
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 »

Atla wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:22 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:16 am You are hooked with some bias: that you assume 'causation' and 'time' as required as a source. You are assuming that 'nothing cannot CAUSE anything'. But what of 'time' itself? You can't use the term 'cause' because we are stuck with justification as it relates to time. But then what CAN we use? One that the logicians use that I try but is less understood by the average person, is apriori which means, "without prior". The term, 'prior', still begs time and so they opted to assert that which has NO time and so is a "source" without concern to time.

If you cannot get your mind to accept this, then I cannot help you (nor others) understand me here. This simple concept is real on the basis of Totality. It doesn't even have the concept 'true' nor 'false' given it contains this such that there is NO outside. Not even 'nothing' exists outside the meaning of 'Totality'. I know that throughout time most people could not understand this and it is basically 'tabooed' in a worse way than the most absurd religious beliefs that POSIT special existences biased to human purpose.
I don't think I have that bias, I see existence as atemporal. (Time is probably a circular dimension of our universe, illusory in a sense.) I meant that not even outside time can nothing cause something, obviously.
That you understand what I'm getting at. I presume 'time' as just a part of the whole. I just mentioned to Belinda that the concept Totality that I use refers to anything and all things true or not under this label. In order to make sense of ultimate 'origins' of concepts, we have to remove time and so 'apriori' might best describe the 'source' or 'background' that is MINIMALLY required. I assert that this is "Absolute Nothingness". The question then becomes whether the concept is most apriori or most 'necessary' and can it suffice to 'cause' anything.

I describe this as the 'background' just as the space you are presently reading now such that if you removed the foreground colors used for the characters, it is the 'empty' space around the characters including the letter's space themselves. Since 'cause' begs time, even that term isn't perfect as I mentioned earlier in this thread.
Belinda
Posts: 4675
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

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

Post by Belinda »

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 2:51 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:39 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:13 pm
I missed your context. Did you accidentally post here thinking you were responding elsewhere?
Your discussion, Scott , is about ultimate origin, is it not?
I'll take that as a 'yes', then. I don't know what to respond to the 'theist' point other than that to point out that when I use the word, "Totality", it is meant to be most inclusive and thus whatever is true or false about your religious 'source' is included in this term. That is, it is this Universe and all other possible realities that are real whether we are able to discern them as such or not is part of "Totality" and that I include 'nothing' (or 'absolute nothing') as fitting here. It doesn't require being 'true' either.

And given you trust there is 'order', at least from where we are, this induced concept about patterns is fair to say that it at least exists in SOME part of Totality.

Is this fair to use for your purpose here so far?
Of course,I have no proof. My belief is intuitive and based on my understanding that change is intrinsic to what is the case, all originating at that ultimate being that is cause of itself.

Moreover it does not make sense to claim no-being is absence of being, as being is the default .
Atla
Posts: 3190
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 3:05 pm
Atla wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:22 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:16 am You are hooked with some bias: that you assume 'causation' and 'time' as required as a source. You are assuming that 'nothing cannot CAUSE anything'. But what of 'time' itself? You can't use the term 'cause' because we are stuck with justification as it relates to time. But then what CAN we use? One that the logicians use that I try but is less understood by the average person, is apriori which means, "without prior". The term, 'prior', still begs time and so they opted to assert that which has NO time and so is a "source" without concern to time.

If you cannot get your mind to accept this, then I cannot help you (nor others) understand me here. This simple concept is real on the basis of Totality. It doesn't even have the concept 'true' nor 'false' given it contains this such that there is NO outside. Not even 'nothing' exists outside the meaning of 'Totality'. I know that throughout time most people could not understand this and it is basically 'tabooed' in a worse way than the most absurd religious beliefs that POSIT special existences biased to human purpose.
I don't think I have that bias, I see existence as atemporal. (Time is probably a circular dimension of our universe, illusory in a sense.) I meant that not even outside time can nothing cause something, obviously.
That you understand what I'm getting at. I presume 'time' as just a part of the whole. I just mentioned to Belinda that the concept Totality that I use refers to anything and all things true or not under this label. In order to make sense of ultimate 'origins' of concepts, we have to remove time and so 'apriori' might best describe the 'source' or 'background' that is MINIMALLY required. I assert that this is "Absolute Nothingness". The question then becomes whether the concept is most apriori or most 'necessary' and can it suffice to 'cause' anything.

I describe this as the 'background' just as the space you are presently reading now such that if you removed the foreground colors used for the characters, it is the 'empty' space around the characters including the letter's space themselves. Since 'cause' begs time, even that term isn't perfect as I mentioned earlier in this thread.
But shouldn't a 'background' also be part of Totality then, absolute nothing is a lack of any 'background'?
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 »

Belinda wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 3:14 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 2:51 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:39 pm

Your discussion, Scott , is about ultimate origin, is it not?
I'll take that as a 'yes', then. I don't know what to respond to the 'theist' point other than that to point out that when I use the word, "Totality", it is meant to be most inclusive and thus whatever is true or false about your religious 'source' is included in this term. That is, it is this Universe and all other possible realities that are real whether we are able to discern them as such or not is part of "Totality" and that I include 'nothing' (or 'absolute nothing') as fitting here. It doesn't require being 'true' either.

And given you trust there is 'order', at least from where we are, this induced concept about patterns is fair to say that it at least exists in SOME part of Totality.

Is this fair to use for your purpose here so far?
Of course,I have no proof. My belief is intuitive and based on my understanding that change is intrinsic to what is the case, all originating at that ultimate being that is cause of itself.

Moreover it does not make sense to claim no-being is absence of being, as being is the default .
You are missing that "being", if not sourced from nothing is either presuming some SPECIAL subjective beliefs about some magical essence that you would hesitate to question OR reality has to be inifinitely indeterminately sourced, right?

I gave 'background' as a way to interpret my meaning given it is relatively STATIC versus the DYNAMIC interpretation that 'origins' tend to imply about time. But besides that, all you CAN claim about anything is THAT something absolutely exists for you here and now. That doesn't remove "nothing" as the source of everything. Note too that my thinking treats ALL things true when "nothing" is true. You can opt to recognize that IF Absolutely Everything 'exists' in Totality, ...that there is no thing that lies outside of it, is identical to Absolutely Nothing.

Take anything physical that 'matters'. We base all reality on 'matter' and so if you were to ask what it is made up of, you get the minimal qualifier, "that which occupies space", of which space is the 'background' to everything. Now take ANY point in this space. It is 'nothing' given it lacks even 'space',....yet the collective set of all points define it. If you have an alterative to trying to express it as "something", you'd need to describe the 'atomic' nature of space as being both nothing AND something.

One point by itself is no space. Yet if you take the next point beside it, it all of a sudden becomes a quantized, 'something' regardless. That is, two 'nothings' add up to manifest 'nothing'. [By the way, I think this is how the symbol and meaning of infinity derived: 0 is nothing; 00 is something and the 'atomic' unit of absolutely all of space.]
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 »

Atla wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 3:23 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 3:05 pm
Atla wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:22 pm
I don't think I have that bias, I see existence as atemporal. (Time is probably a circular dimension of our universe, illusory in a sense.) I meant that not even outside time can nothing cause something, obviously.
That you understand what I'm getting at. I presume 'time' as just a part of the whole. I just mentioned to Belinda that the concept Totality that I use refers to anything and all things true or not under this label. In order to make sense of ultimate 'origins' of concepts, we have to remove time and so 'apriori' might best describe the 'source' or 'background' that is MINIMALLY required. I assert that this is "Absolute Nothingness". The question then becomes whether the concept is most apriori or most 'necessary' and can it suffice to 'cause' anything.

I describe this as the 'background' just as the space you are presently reading now such that if you removed the foreground colors used for the characters, it is the 'empty' space around the characters including the letter's space themselves. Since 'cause' begs time, even that term isn't perfect as I mentioned earlier in this thread.
But shouldn't a 'background' also be part of Totality then, absolute nothing is a lack of any 'background'?
It is. I defined Totality as containing all. There is no 'outside' and so even "false" things fit in it regardless. It is just separated from the rest. But regardless, the 'background' AS 'absolutely nothing' is behind all that is as well as all that is not.

In set theory, they define all things as 'classes'. Then they describe that a class is represented by braces, like (X) or {Y}. The EMPTY class (a set for being a member of Totality but that which 'contains' the meaning of nothing) is defined as "{}" or the for shorthand. Note that they chose this likely to represent that it is both a something AND a nothing using the strikethrough for this.

This , the "empty set" represents this idea. All other sets can be defined by using this a its only 'constant' and various ways of representing different things using only these two symbols: '{' and '}'. This is all that is needed to prove most of all maths. I extend this to reality to the model given at some point, the reality itself HAS to be represent something abstract before it can be considered to 'manifest' space, time, and matter.

Your assumption of a default 'something' is like expecting characters to have meaningful expression WITHOUT a background that is itself ignored without notice....or writing without having a medium that something is 'written' on. The message of meaning of a blank page PRIOR to writing is this 'absolute nothing' by analogy. It means literally 'absolutely nothing' until one uses contrasting ink to represent 'something' as a message. But the 'something' that the writing represents REQUIRES that background FIRST. Absolulely Nothing, like a blank slate, can exit alone and independent of whatever else that can be added, while Absolutely Something is coincidence to the existence of that blank page as 'nothing' OR it is the writing alone. It still cannot mean anything without the blank spaces around characters that help identify the unique meanings of each expressed symbol.
Atla
Posts: 3190
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:21 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 3:23 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 3:05 pm
That you understand what I'm getting at. I presume 'time' as just a part of the whole. I just mentioned to Belinda that the concept Totality that I use refers to anything and all things true or not under this label. In order to make sense of ultimate 'origins' of concepts, we have to remove time and so 'apriori' might best describe the 'source' or 'background' that is MINIMALLY required. I assert that this is "Absolute Nothingness". The question then becomes whether the concept is most apriori or most 'necessary' and can it suffice to 'cause' anything.

I describe this as the 'background' just as the space you are presently reading now such that if you removed the foreground colors used for the characters, it is the 'empty' space around the characters including the letter's space themselves. Since 'cause' begs time, even that term isn't perfect as I mentioned earlier in this thread.
But shouldn't a 'background' also be part of Totality then, absolute nothing is a lack of any 'background'?
It is. I defined Totality as containing all. There is no 'outside' and so even "false" things fit in it regardless. It is just separated from the rest. But regardless, the 'background' AS 'absolutely nothing' is behind all that is as well as all that is not.

In set theory, they define all things as 'classes'. Then they describe that a class is represented by braces, like (X) or {Y}. The EMPTY class (a set for being a member of Totality but that which 'contains' the meaning of nothing) is defined as "{}" or the for shorthand. Note that they chose this likely to represent that it is both a something AND a nothing using the strikethrough for this.

This , the "empty set" represents this idea. All other sets can be defined by using this a its only 'constant' and various ways of representing different things using only these two symbols: '{' and '}'. This is all that is needed to prove most of all maths. I extend this to reality to the model given at some point, the reality itself HAS to be represent something abstract before it can be considered to 'manifest' space, time, and matter.

Your assumption of a default 'something' is like expecting characters to have meaningful expression WITHOUT a background that is itself ignored without notice....or writing without having a medium that something is 'written' on. The message of meaning of a blank page PRIOR to writing is this 'absolute nothing' by analogy. It means literally 'absolutely nothing' until one uses contrasting ink to represent 'something' as a message. But the 'something' that the writing represents REQUIRES that background FIRST. Absolulely Nothing, like a blank slate, can exit alone and independent of whatever else that can be added, while Absolutely Something is coincidence to the existence of that blank page as 'nothing' OR it is the writing alone. It still cannot mean anything without the blank spaces around characters that help identify the unique meanings of each expressed symbol.
The blank slate, the background are also something, not nothing, it's simply human thinking that automatically uses contrasting. Also, set theory has nothing to do with the real world. Also, totality does not contain "false" things (or "true" things for that matter) because these are judgements made by humans.
These are simple examples of faulty thinking, sort them out and you'll see that nothing as origin is incoherent.
Post Reply