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

[Scott Mayers]

You don't get that the FOUNDATION of logic is dependent FIRST on those three rules. It doesn't assume some privilege for time there. I've learned multivariable logic as an extension of the binary true/false forms and see how it is more 'generally' inclusive. That suffices to extend to multivariable meanings, of which you are thinking in your examples above. You can alter how you device a more comprehensive logic but only by BEGINNING with the foundations. I'm not sure how you think this cannot occur? You can't even assert me as having any informal fallacies, like 'equivocation', when that too is based on understanding what is improperly being treated as equal when not. The very arguments used to express a need for multivariable systems does so using things like propositional and predicate logic using our words. Once 'convinced', then those new systems are created.

The idea of showing that the normal contradictions tossed out still STAY in Totality means that you CAN still use what is normally placed aside by SPLITTING the system. So, for instance, if you come across a paradox in science (which could be just an error of perspective), you are forced to KEEP it unless you can resolve it. The only way to resolve it is to split the system at where one normally eliminates it. So if you come across a contradiction that is normally rejected, use the present system (present machine) to deal with non-contradicting result (as normal) but have a separate system take the opposing value.

If A & not-A is discovered upon some assumption, say B, then normally this proves not-B. If it is still necessarily true that B, then not-B is kept in the present system (as a denial due to contradiction) and B is sent as input to the new machine where it adds one value to the system's variables and then 'runs' it. If it still runs into a new contradiction, it can then be spit again.

All computers that have parallel processing (all nowadays) has a 'master' CPU that initiates the system but then splits into two or more other CPUs (cores) to operate in parallel. These are examples of using the SAME 'logic' form for each core but they don't have to. The 'quantum computers', for instance, are designed to have each gate permit three valued logics, ...for the Q-bit design, they use -1, 0, an 1, where -1 refers to current going opposite to 1 and the 0 is the normal static position. The logic is just one extension from the traditional binary. In the binary initial 'core', you would have values {0,1}. You can have this system give an 'error' when BOTH values (a contradiction) occurs. So where you reach what would normally be an 'error', you add a new level of logic that has the values {0, 1, 2} [this is indifferent to {-1, 0, 1}]. You can still keep an elimination rule after that OR opt to add another level.

[Note that the Q-bit design has the problem of current induction that changing directions (an AC-logic) impose. So, contrary to what many may think, Quantum machines are not designs that the binary machines cannot do but permit parallel gates that act as many binary computers in parallel at the level of each gate. This is good for some tasks, like breaking or creating encryption, but requires more energy needed to cool the conductors so that they don't induce interference to neighboring gates. They also cannot make them as small as the binary norm. So the Quantum machines would not be able to actually replace the traditional binary-logic systems. The overall 'work' (energy) is still conserved. The point is that the normal binary logic can do all that the extended logics do but by using literal parallel sets of binary-logic processors.]

Thus all the complex possible 'machines' (logics) can be still designed beginning on the same foundation. If you find a problem that cannot be resolved no matter how many additional 'processes' you add, then you've exhausted what WE could deal with in time [incompleteness]. Nature as a whole is what is perpetually 'incomplete' and thus allows me to point out why an absolute nothing is a sensible foundation for being perfectly 'inconsistent' and most inclusive AND turns out to be the same as Absolutely Infinite possibilities.

[Scott Mayers]

No. I read it through ...
Thus, I interpret your search for morals itself is 'religious-like' AND, as you oddly accuse me of, due to some psychological issue you have in mind [...such as a fear of what it might mean should no morals be provable in principle to exist beyond political or social-psychological interactions.]

My point is I am not seeking absolutely-absolute moral universals as those from Plato or from a God.

I am seeking empirically and philosophically verifiable moral facts that are universal [generic] within all humans. I am OK if you term them relative-absolutes. This is like ALL humans has a generic-universal digestive system.

Since off-topic, I'll skip discussing the above moral facts here.

I'll defer this also to separate discussions. [But I do disagree, of course.] My intent was to show that some of what you said regarding motive that you may think unacceptable has to be reciprocally reflected on what you believe is acceptable in another area with apparent conflict. I believe you understand this and is at least something that you respect me for mentioning for comparison.

So....

...no, I do not have a 'psychological' nor 'existential' issue about my motives here other than the trivial drive to do something that I like and strongly desire to prove as it relates to consistent thoughts regarding science and logic beyond this point. I'm not sure where this is coming from other than my willingness to state my contemporary mindset, like when I said I was 'frustrated' before. I'll stop asserting emotive assides if it is going to be inappropriately tossed back in my face. It kind of forces one to be stictly formal without allowing it, though. I'm one who more often does this by default but it comes across cold and robotic.

And note that I already proposed that secular realities give the background for creating religions. And I've argued this throughout my time here and elsewhere. That religion is an evolution of the very secular, philosophical, and 'scientific' things of a prior period that have lost their original justifications. Obviously given there is no god (my opinion), where else would religion get their foundation but FROM reality?

All humans actions are grounded on an existential foundation, i.e. all humans are programmed to survive till the inevitable.

When you postulate 'absolute nothing' absolutely exists an Origin, I assert this is driven by the very primal existential crisis from your unconscious mind which obviously you would not be conscious of it.
Thus you'll need research to understand how this unconscious motive is driving you to the above postulation.
I would not dispute your hypothesis if you can bring it within empirical-philosophical possibility, but you are unable to do so.

Considering my own aptitude for liking all areas of interest, I already have been very self-reflective and even studied (non-professionally) many psychology and sociologial studies and their offshoots, like social-psychology, religion, etc.. So I have no hangups about existence issues, not afraid to die in the least, and in contrast to the vast majority of people who could not endure pychological dissonance for thinking as deep as I do, I am only more enlightened for discussing this, not troubled in mind. I am very confident in what I argue and the only frustrations I have deal with the effectiveness of communicating it satisfactorily, whether it be from my end or others. So don't presume my mental health has any relation here. I am not 'deluded' in the logic regardless of motives that drive my interest here.

My background includes this knowledge. I studied logic of both formal deduction and induction; I've also read a lot on "methodology of science", and have a good handful of texts directly or indirectly referring to this.
Logic though is NOT a trivial 'guiding tool', contrary to many who would agree with you. It is a NECESSARY tool for ANY science as it is for philosophy in general.

I interpret 'science' as the process of trying to guess WHAT the 'logic' of something is to Nature itself [capitalized is to include those who interpret 'nature' as defined by their religious definitions of "God" where they believe the secular meaning has 'values' like good or evil.

I don't see science is trying to guess, "WHAT" the 'logic' of something to Nature.
There are two separate philosophical issues to the above, i.e. epistemological and ontological

Science rely on logic to guess and approximate the Objective Reality it ASSUMED.
This is related to epistemology, i.e. JTB.

The "WHAT" of Nature is beyond science, i.e. it refer to the ontological elements, i.e. metaphysics.
Metaphysics also attempt to use logic to establish what is the ultimate Nature of things of reality. This is leading to Substance theory and therefrom 'thing-in-itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

You cannot conflate science -empirically [epistemology] based with metaphysics, i.e. ontology the study of being.

The point is science use basic logic of induction, but metaphysics relies on transcendental logic based on Pure Reason which is at best pseudo-rational.

Quoting Kant again;

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title [rational], since they [conclusions] are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
CPR -B397

The above fall back to the inherent psychological motives that drive PURE REASON is jump into pseudo-rational conclusions that generate consonance to relieve the inherent dissonances.

I think motive is helpful to understand where one comes from in their reasoning so that you can communicate effectively as possible from their perspective. It also helps to make sense of what might be meant by someone's argument if you discover unconventional uses of terms, etc. But the motive is still NOT the arguments at issue. The arguments can stand even if the one proposing it is too obsessively compulsed to spend their time on it where others might have normally quit. Mentioning what you think COULD be affecting my motive to argue is irrelevant unless you think I'm so affected that I cannot reason in the present argument.

I still don't relate to the fuzzy descriptions and interpretation of Kant here. I distinctly separate 'science' [instutitional or personal] as dealing with observations from 'logic' which is the actual 'mechanisms' of anything, whether it be our human reasoning or to Nature's 'reasoning'. I've explained that I had to give up going against the present debates demarcating science from philosophy and logic. So I clearly define the set of complexities that 'science' deals with to be generally about seeking understanding of nature (its logic), like one tearing apart a watch to try to determine how it works; whereas all mechanisms whether it be of nature OR of manipulation of symbols and data (analysis) as strictly the domain of logic. Science uses a subset of logic to try to discover things also, but this logic is itself the analytical mechanisms, processes and inductions used to determine the actual machines of nature. We use induction to practically narrow down what might be the mechanisms involved and then TEST the logic to see if its outputs when 'run' map to the observations as conclusions. The reasoning of science then is to seek the patterns of nature, whereas logic is the functions of nature. We also happen to use deduction alongside induction in science but is NOT itself 'science', the human endevour to discover the real underlying logic of the Universe.

You separate the ontology from the epistemology. That's fine. But science is intended to be more about the 'ontology' (reality) where logic is the means of the way we can find new conclusions 'epistemically' based on reality. Because I also don't disagree with your perspective of the reverse of this by assigning metaphysics the area speaking about what reality itself is and treating outcomes from science as what we may call, 'knowledge', as the 'epistemological' parts. Thus I cannot agree with the assigning of epistemology nor ontology uniquely to either logic or science exclusively. My descriptive distinction is simpler to me. Science is a subset of logic that deals specifically with finding premises based on observations, the induction used to guess at the deductive logic (mechanisms), and how we can pragmatically use the conclusions for external applications. Logic is primarily the deduced consistent machines that don't require addressing (normally) the inputs' soundness. I CAN do this for logical tautologies. And if we understand that nature is itself a 'logic', then it is reasonable to presume we might discover within logic itself how nature takes nothing as inputs to derive outputs that are real.

The ulimate 'model' of reality IS the reality itself. But these themselves cannot be realized without recognizing that the laws of nature, including its mechanisms, have to take something 'untouchable' (intangible) to something that is 'touchable'. It's either that or you presume an infinite regress of 'touchable' (tangible) features no matter how deep you penetrate it through science. It is thus necessary to recognize that this is a bias that presumes that if we cannot 'touch' it, it is not real AND that there will always be infinitely new 'touchables' the more precise we get. The problem with this logic is that the sense of 'touch' is limited to the very physics that make 'touch' possible. I'm interested in the ultimate logic(s) that nature itself is manifest from, the patterns of non-physical factors that DEFINE what is physical. This has to be an 'untouchable' set of inputs or things like 'touch' would not be reducible. That is, something like the sense of touch would be itself an 'elemental' atomic particle!?? This to me is more irrational and 'religious-like' for humans who believe that setting limits on what we are permitted to address. These are 'taboos' that are politically defined that keep humans at its center.

So 'science' is limited to being a politic regarding practical concerns used to eventually create new technologies that appeal to us for various human purposes. But to assume that the philosophy apart from official science is NOT-practical enough for consideration in discovering more things about both the ultimate 'inputs' of reality AND its mechanisms (the logic of nature itself) is begging that, like your concern that I might have some 'pychological' irrational motives for seeking, the search for absolute universal truths is a 'bad' or ill-conceived activity itself.

So rounding back to the beginning of this post, seeking for absolutes regarding Totality may not be 'necessary' for many, but is itself not grounds to presume those seeking them have some illness. You can be sure that any thinking is NOT 'normal' for all animals and that we need some real motivational BARRIERS that can must TRIGGER one's pychology enough to make them LOOK deeper into things. But who is actually 'ill' of mind? The obsessive thinkers throughout time have ALWAYS had some relative psychological motivation; but they are also the same ones who made human evolution to BE more 'intellectual' at all. We are not 'normal' for being intelligent. It requires some force due to some real barriers that lead to dissonance that then acts as the motivating factor for intellectual pursuits. The majority of anti-intellectual and pro-emotional 'normal' people owe their present comforts due to technology and wisdom from the minority of the apparent insanity of the obsessive thinkers'.

[Scott Mayers]

Point is Nature and Reality [all there is] do not exists independent without any interaction with the human conditions.

This issue has been debated ever since Philosophy emerged within human consciousness, note, Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism.

Your stance is that of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
I take the Philosophical Anti-Realism stance, i.e. the Empirical Realism re Kant.

I understand from your response here that you take a type of 'anthropic principle' as a stance. That is, you assume that no one who argues is permitted to argue without our bias to human concerns. Thus you are imposing a politic,....an 'etiquette' of behavior you believe limits us to accept arguments that don't have a human-centered mindset?

I see how you presume me as having some mental illness of thought processes here. You only see the practical realities as being required absolutely in the way people of the ancient past used to question the reasoning of those who taught geometry. The same socio-political behaviors of the past only prevented progress because they see things as requiring IMMEDIATE meaning. Euclid may have had difficulties 'selling' to others why the logical processes of thought that he goes into his "Elements" were essential to reasoning because they appeared to be NON-EXPEDIENT justifications to invest in.

I think it was Archimedes (?) who is granted credit for offering to pay someone to learn geometry because the skeptic he was offering to teach could not see the 'practical and expedient' reasons that the process of thought itself mattered. While I'm sure you think that this is not the same, it is. I can't 'prove' to you THAT something non-tangible can manifest reality if you simply refuse the possibility in its entirety. If you are limited, then accept it as your own, not mine. I take the 'math(logic)-is-reality' position that manifests physical reality. Otherwise you end up with the same infinite regress for presuming the definition of 'gods' to be the 'real' tangible limits of inquiry. Note that "Absolutely Nothing" is NOT something one thinks of their 'gods', ....ONLY either an Absolute One or Absolute Infinite, but NEVER an Absolute Nothing!! This point is required in anticipation that you might think that my 'absolute nothing' is some kind of religious insanity. I assure you that your presumptions of my position as being of 'crisis' that leads to religion is only due to those who REJECT nothing as possible as an origin OR to any instances of 'nothing' elsewhere in reality. The lack of understanding the nature of 'contradictions' and 'paradoxes' has made many turn TO religion. I have no possible chance from where I argue from to devolve to religous processes.

Why do you need to INFER [without empirical evidence] indirectly 'what that is' in the first place.
As I had stated, why people like you and others [..I was once into that] infer there must be an ultimate, i.e. "absolute-nothing" as an origin and the ground of all things, is due to subliminal psychology.

Note Wittgenstein's advice;
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”
Thus one has to literally 'shut up' and resist the natural inference there is some finality or certitude.

Think about it, what is of use in insisting there must be a final cause, either an ultimate thing-in-itself or absolute-nothing.
For most, the reason is the subliminal psychology to generate consonance to deal with the dissonance that there is no grounds to stand on.

I have a literal physics T.O.E.
I'm working on that derived FROM my thinking about how Nature is derivable from nothing.
These have to be 'absolutes' for closure. I'd like to connect the scientific theory to a universal logic theorem. And I ask you NOT to further question the motives here as they are not relevant to the question of whether ....

Absolute Anything implies Absolutely Nothing as a 'source' of all (IF there IS such an absolute source)

I happen to believe that Absolutely Nothing IS a real source but this could NOT be directly observable given no one can BE at that point in Totality. This is NOT meaning it had to have a 'time when' there existed absolutely nothing but that Nature itself (as Totality and all that is included in it) covers both consistent realities and inconsistent ones. That is Totality itself is "inconsistent" as a whole, just as "Absolutely Nothing" is. All 'truth' and 'falsity' lie in its domain by definition and 'causation' is only itself an apparition by its perspective. "Origins" (like 'genesis') is an unfortunate term but means the "ultimate static foundation of Totality". If you disagree that this could "exist", it is the word 'exist' that is getting in your way. If you assert a denial of this, you are only affirming FROM the perspective of being inside of 'consistent' or 'contingent' parts of Totality. You are correct to affirm this if you limit your reality to our Universe AND assume that ours is ABSOLUTELY UNIQUE! [ie.You assume "Totality" to be identical to our special "Universe"]

Your TOE as above is not tenable and cannot be realistic.

Wow, I didn't even get a chance to express it in that mere paragraph. But I understand that this is due to the barrier of reasoning that you cannot accept that is 'necessary' to the theory and not speaking of what the theory could propose.

I think you have an enthymeme regarding "nothing" and "absolutes", like Age has in discussing this too, that may be something like,

[1] "All things are 'caused' by something and never nothing."

And given you interpret "Absolute Nothing" as meaning it also has to STAY true consistently (another issue I'm discussing with Skepdick), you assume,

[2] "Logic is ONLY the functioning creation of humans such that it is not permitted to 'prove' anything with symbolic apriori inputs that lack referents to tangible reality."

As to [1] and [2] above, if this is an accepted interpretation of an underlying set of assumptions you hold, then you may be hesitant to question things that cannot demonstrate something in the abscence of TIME, with the most significance. What I could do is try to show you how you CAN describe time as another spacial dimension such that you can (in principle) have a STATIC representation equivalent to reality WITHOUT considering actual time. I can extend this to all possible dimensions such that a Universe can be describable (in principle) as a non-changing constant 'structure' [defined in terms of logic]. Then, given you can interpret the 'symbols' used as merely symbols, the model it represents CAN be equivalent to the reality where the symbols merely point-to absolutes that cannot themselves be penetrated for discovery.

The most 'atomic' element in all of physics is space itself. And if you could understand that each point is itself not required to reference the unreferencable, like Absolutes in general are, you can use the description of points ONLY to sufficiently describe all of reality. You just keep the Absolutes contained as perfectly indeterminate which, if possible to open, CAN be anything. The behaviors POSSIBLE to describing a system based ONLY on points (or pointers) suffices to both explain reality and is what reality itself would BEHAVE like, without concern to 'what' they are.

Atoms were once thought to be the 'minimal unit' to which one could have assigned a symbol that points-to the reality without directly speaking about what it could mean. Then the BEHAVIOR described suffices to speak about the reality. When we discovered contradictions that pointed to something MORE existing inside of atoms, then the newer proposed subparticles become the new 'points' because we have basically found a means to OPEN what we thought prior to be unopenable before. The 'containers' here are all that matters and the description of how these containers behave are all that is needed.

I have discovered a UNIQUE way to describe reality using only the points as being ONE concept [as a class], namely 'pointers' themselves that at some degree end on some absolute that cannot be opened but act with all the same properties that the points themselves are describable as.

For instance, if you recognize that all we base science on is of descriptions entailing points (undefined) that we describe using math and geometry, then while the map may not BE the reality, at some point, the reality and SOME 'model' exist that is representable as itself.

One way that would help is if you at first POSTULATED the "Absolute Nothing", without questioning whether it means anything real and then see how it CAN lead to a universal means of describing reality. Then, as long as the description matches satisfactorily, you could at least be comfortable with using the logic without being tied up into whether the pointers themselves ARE the reality.

I'll attempt to do this if you want. I mean to eventually anyways. That way you may at least see how the logic I use is POSSIBLE to be representative of Nature's mechanics [it logic].

[Note I read the whole post but all I said here covers what would answer any relevant issues you've raised so far.]

Edit note: I also read the followup post to which I believe the contents above would need to be satisfied in order to bother wasting time on the other dependent issues.

[Scott Mayers]

To me, the very SIMPLE and SMALL word 'if' lays a very DISTINCT CONDITION. So, the example you provided previously of how you could have rewrote the title here was VERY SUFFICIENT, for me.



So, REALLY 'it' is NOT a 'conditional' AT ALL. As you REALLY want to argue that 'it' IS TRUE.

The conditional is true.

What IS the 'conditional', EXACTLY, which you now propose 'is true'?

This suffices to stop me from trying to say anything to you. You have a severe short-term memory problem and ask me stupid questions that make me require repeating myself. I clarified the title's meaning as the CONDITIONAL and the only one. To phrase the same reworded:

If (Something exists and has an origin), then (Absolutely Nothing is the origin).

The antecedent is (Something exists and has an origin) and the consequense is (Absolutely Nothing is the origin).

The conditional is asserting that no source cause is needed, like some God, nor some given set of elemental concepts, like electrons and protons, quarks, etc. , that act as quantized 'gods' for their lack of being further penetrable and fixed as 'special' without its own accountability to further 'stucture'. The ultimate source of anything can be described using ONLY points, logical or literal points in space as the 'quantum' unit that stand for "nothings" (relative) but all point to a source concept, the Absolute Nothing. [Absolute Nothing is unique; the points representing it are 'relative' objects that lack a need to have 'substance' other than as a symbol.

I can't waste my time with you without ANY flexibility on your part. I asked you not to LOAD me with questions nor LEAD me by them, but you continue to do so. I see repetition and exponential expansion of the same 'questions' or complaints that are only more confusing and/or more complex to address. If you can't accept even a minimal significant argument, I doubt I can satisfy you no matter how hard I could try. If you have a proposed belief, open a thread with such a statement that one can possibly determine where you are coming from.

There is something 'hidden' about your beliefs that I cannot care to determine at the moment. I'd require a digression on that to determine your modus operandi, then, see how your perception differs from mine, then to find the contentious issues to challenge, agree to, or disprove,.... all then and only then to just to be permitted to present my own theses by contrast.

If you have a question, that you claim you only do, then stick ONLY with one because with you, each one is 'pivotal'. Find the underlying 'pivotal' questions that I can answer to which if NOT answered cannot permit you passage. Why ask more questions of which even one is sufficient to prevent further discussion? This is like how one need not answer every religious person's question they might demand needs adressing base on the credibility of their source scriptures. If the credibility of the book is at question (a pivotal question), how does one think that answering further questions about its contents matter other than to entertain?

[Scott Mayers]

The following link relates to this as I tried to introduce a more interactive and entertaining way to address all issues in abstraction for logical analysis AND to co-represent real things we observe in nature:

I have this box collecting dust...

[Age]

The conditional is true.

What IS the 'conditional', EXACTLY, which you now propose 'is true'?

This suffices to stop me from trying to say anything to you. You have a severe short-term memory problem and ask me stupid questions that make me require repeating myself. I clarified the title's meaning as the CONDITIONAL and the only one. To phrase the same reworded:

If (Something exists and has an origin), then (Absolutely Nothing is the origin).

So, just to make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR here, 'you', "scott mayers", CLAIM that (IF something exists and has an origin), then (Absolutely Nothing is the origin) AND that this is TRUE.

Now, to make this ABSOLUTELY MORE CLEAR, OBVIOUSLY something exists.

So, now we just have to WAIT for 'you' to PROVE that there was an 'origin' to Everything. Because, according to YOUR "LOGIC" here, IF there was an 'origin', to the sum of EVERY thing together as One Everything, then there was Absolutely Nothing as that 'origin'. Correct?

If yes, then, and by the way, by definition of the words, 'an origin of Everything' is a contradiction and oxymoron that can NOT be reconciled NOR corrected.

The antecedent is (Something exists and has an origin) and the consequense is (Absolutely Nothing is the origin).

From my perspective this would be the other way around, and what you are 'trying to' argue for anyway.

That is; To 'you', Absolutely Nothing is the, preexisting, origin, which, consequently, became Something/Everything.

Now that we are CLOSER to EXPOSING YOUR BELIEFS, FULLY and Truthfully, what EVIDENCE or PROOF are USING that Something from Nothing is EVEN POSSIBLE, let alone ACTUALLY HAPPENED?

The conditional is asserting that no source cause is needed, like some God, nor some given set of elemental concepts, like electrons and protons, quarks, etc. , that act as quantized 'gods' for their lack of being further penetrable and fixed as 'special' without its own accountability to further 'stucture'.

BUT WHY bring the word 'God' or 'gods' into this subject?

Also, if 'you' are ASSERTING that NO cause is NEEDED for ANY 'thing', then do NOT be surprised that you will get some DISAGREEMENT and NONACCEPTANCE here.

Again, what PROOF do 'you' HAVE that some 'thing' could even come from Absolutely NO 'thing'?

The ultimate source of anything can be described using ONLY points, logical or literal points in space as the 'quantum' unit that stand for "nothings" (relative) but all point to a source concept, the Absolute Nothing. [Absolute Nothing is unique; the points representing it are 'relative' objects that lack a need to have 'substance' other than as a symbol.

ALL I can SEE 'you' doing here is 'you' 'trying' absolutely ANY thing to back up AND support YOUR ALREADY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

NOTHING 'you' just said here relates to what IS ACTUALLY True.

I can't waste my time with you without ANY flexibility on your part.

LOL WHY do 'I' have to be FLEXIBLE to 'that', which is NOT True?

For example, from my perspective, the ' ultimate source of anything can be described using thee ACTUAL 'thing' which has been and IS the source of ANY 'thing' ', SO, WHY would 'I' be FLEXIBLE to YOUR CLAIM, from your perspective, that the 'ultimate source of anything can be described using ONLY 'points'?

As I have POINTED OUT and SAID ALREADY; 'you' are just 'trying' to word things in a way, which fits in with and supports YOUR ALREADY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

LOOK AT the two perspectives, in the example, I just gave and TELL US what is MORE TRUE.

I asked you not to LOAD me with questions nor LEAD me by them, but you continue to do so.

And, you EXPECT me to be FLEXIBLE to YOUR, OBVIOUSLY, FALSE and WRONG conclusions.

Also, MY QUESTIONS are in relation to YOUR CLAIMS, and IF answered Honestly and OPENLY, then those answers will either back up and support YOUR CLAIMS, or they will SHOW and REVEAL something else.

Look, if you do NOT like being questioned and/or challenged in relation to YOUR CLAIMS, or you can NOT back up and support YOUR CLAIMS, BEFORE you make the CLAIMS, then I suggest you DO NOT MAKE THE CLAIM in the FIRST PLACE.

I see repetition and exponential expansion of the same 'questions' or complaints that are only more confusing and/or more complex to address.

Okay. But I am ABLE TO ask these questions because I ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth of these things ARE.

If you can't accept even a minimal significant argument, I doubt I can satisfy you no matter how hard I could try. If you have a proposed belief, open a thread with such a statement that one can possibly determine where you are coming from.

There is something 'hidden' about your beliefs that I cannot care to determine at the moment.

And LOL no matter how many times I INFORM you and TELL you that I have NO beliefs AT ALL, 'you' STILL say things like this here. You CLAIMED earlier that; I have a "severe short-term memory problem". This could ACTUALLY be a True 'self'-representation of 'you' here.

Also, if you do NOT care to even try to UNDERSTAND thee "other", 'determine their views', then this EXPLAINS FULLY WHY you do NOT care about what "other's" say, and, you ONLY care about YOUR VIEWS, BELIEFS AND ASSUMPTIONS, being heard and that "others" ARE FLEXIBLE to 'you' and to YOUR VIEWS, BELIEFS, and ASSUMPTIONS.

LOOK, to me, YOUR VIEWS here are NOT WORTHY of BEING FLEXIBLE to. This is because YOUR VIEWS here are just PLAIN False AND Wrong.

I'd require a digression on that to determine your modus operandi, then, see how your perception differs from mine, then to find the contentious issues to challenge, agree to, or disprove,.... all then and only then to just to be permitted to present my own theses by contrast.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in the Universe, is STOPPING 'you' presenting your OWN 'theses'.

Also, if you are NOT YET ALREADY AWARE how your perception DIFFERS from mine, then this is CLEAR EVIDENCE that you Truly do NOT care to DETERMINE what another is ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING.

I ALREADY KNOW the 'contentious issues' to CHALLENGE, to AGREE TO and WITH, and to DISPROVE, as ALREADY EVIDENCED and PROVEN by what I have ALREADY said AND asked you.

If you have a question, that you claim you only do, then stick ONLY with one because with you, each one is 'pivotal'.

I do NOT claim that I ONLY have (a) question/s.

Also, how long am I meant to stick ONLY with ONE question, only?

Find the underlying 'pivotal' questions that I can answer to which if NOT answered cannot permit you passage.

What does the end part of this MEAN?

Do you want me to ASSUME what YOUR answer WOULD BE, IF you do NOT answer? Or, something else?

Why ask more questions of which even one is sufficient to prevent further discussion?

But NONE of MY QUESTIONS prevent further discussion. In fact MY QUESTIONS lead to 'you' UNCOVERING and FINDING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, ALSO. That is; If you were to answer MY QUESTIONS Honestly and OPENLY.

This is like how one need not answer every religious person's question they might demand needs adressing base on the credibility of their source scriptures.

This is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like this at all. I am NOT 'demanding' ABSOLUTELY ANY thing. I am ONLY posing CLARIFYING or CHALLENGING QUESTIONS to those who Truly are 'Truth seekers'. For the rest they will just carrying on wanting their OWN VIEWS, BELIEFS, and ASSUMPTIONS to 'be heard' and to 'be LISTENED TO'. As EVIDENCED and PROVEN above.

If the credibility of the book is at question (a pivotal question), how does one think that answering further questions about its contents matter other than to entertain?

What have 'religious scriptures' got ABSOLUTELY ANY thing at all to do with what I have been ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of how one's OWN ASSUMPTIONS can all to QUICKLY and EASILY one so COMPLETELY and UTTERLY ASTRAY from thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

By the way, the amount of time and focus that you spend on OTHER ISSUES, which do NOT have ANY thing at all to do with what I am ACTUALLY talking about AND meaning, instead of just focusing on the ACTUAL QUESTION/S at hand ONLY, EXPLAINS WHY you feel that you are just wasting YOUR time here, with me.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All humans actions are grounded on an existential foundation, i.e. all humans are programmed to survive till the inevitable.

When you postulate 'absolute nothing' absolutely exists an Origin, I assert this is driven by the very primal existential crisis from your unconscious mind which obviously you would not be conscious of it.
Thus you'll need research to understand how this unconscious motive is driving you to the above postulation.
I would not dispute your hypothesis if you can bring it within empirical-philosophical possibility, but you are unable to do so.

Considering my own aptitude for liking all areas of interest, I already have been very self-reflective and even studied (non-professionally) many psychology and sociologial studies and their offshoots, like social-psychology, religion, etc..
So I have no hangups about existence issues, not afraid to die in the least, and in contrast to the vast majority of people who could not endure psychological dissonance for thinking as deep as I do, I am only more enlightened for discussing this, not troubled in mind.
I am very confident in what I argue and the only frustrations I have deal with the effectiveness of communicating it satisfactorily, whether it be from my end or others.
So don't presume my mental health has any relation here. I am not 'deluded' in the logic regardless of motives that drive my interest here.

Btw, ALL humans are "programmed" via evolution with an inherent, necessary, unavoidable existence dilemma that exude dissonance which drives all to seek consonance to relief that existential dissonance.

As such, the set of "ALL" would include me, you and others and we seek [consciously and consciously] consonance to relief the dissonance differently but within a range and continuum that would be regarded as normal. So what I have been discussing or recommending on a personal basis has nothing to do with your [or others herein] mental health problems which are confined to those listed in the DSM-V.

The continuum where one seek consonance ranges from theists, spiritualist, secular, philosophy [Philosophical Realism versus anti-realism]. Some of the secular turned to drugs, pain killers, hallucinogens, various activities, etc. to relieve the inherent unavoidable dissonance.
Your stance is that of Philosophical Realism which at the ultimate deals with illusion to relieve the dissonance at a meta-level. This is a basically a psychological activity but I would not regard this as a mental-issue at all.

Btw, ALL humans are "programmed" with the inherent suppression of not to be consciously fear death most of the time to prevent paralysis-by-fear. Those who fear death consciously most of the time are actually mentally ill, i.e. suffering from Thanatophobia which require psychiatric help.
So the majority of humans actually do not fear death all the time except only in sporadic moments but that go away very quickly.

But the unconscious mind [90% more powerful than the conscious] is well aware of the existential dilemma, thus driving the mind/brain to seek consonance to relieve the dissonance at the unconscious level and manifesting conscious thoughts and actions, e.g. hanging to a belief in an all powerful God who promised salvation to eternal life, thus the immediate consonance.

So, nope, when I mentioned the psychology of yours and the likes, it has nothing to do with mental illness [DSM-V] at all.

I don't see science is trying to guess, "WHAT" the 'logic' of something to Nature.
There are two separate philosophical issues to the above, i.e. epistemological and ontological

Science rely on logic to guess and approximate the Objective Reality it ASSUMED.
This is related to epistemology, i.e. JTB.

The "WHAT" of Nature is beyond science, i.e. it refer to the ontological elements, i.e. metaphysics.
Metaphysics also attempt to use logic to establish what is the ultimate Nature of things of reality. This is leading to Substance theory and therefrom 'thing-in-itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

You cannot conflate science -empirically [epistemology] based with metaphysics, i.e. ontology the study of being.

The point is science use basic logic of induction, but metaphysics relies on transcendental logic based on Pure Reason which is at best pseudo-rational.

Quoting Kant again;

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title [rational], since they [conclusions] are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
CPR -B397

The above fall back to the inherent psychological motives that drive PURE REASON is jump into pseudo-rational conclusions that generate consonance to relieve the inherent dissonances.

I think motive is helpful to understand where one comes from in their reasoning so that you can communicate effectively as possible from their perspective. It also helps to make sense of what might be meant by someone's argument if you discover unconventional uses of terms, etc.
But the motive is still NOT the arguments at issue.
The arguments can stand even if the one proposing it is too obsessively compulsed to spend their time on it where others might have normally quit.
Mentioning what you think COULD be affecting my motive to argue is irrelevant unless you think I'm so affected that I cannot reason in the present argument.

I don't intend to be personal. When I refer to you, I am actually referring a class of people who are doing thinking like you, i.e. the Philosophical Realists with their stance of Philosophical Realism.

When you take the Philosophical Realism stance,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
you will claim that whatever the argument, it will stand independent of the person and all human conditions.

However the Philosophical Anti-Realists will claim whatever the argument, it cannot be absolutely independent of the person and all human conditions.
However what is claimed by be conditioned upon a framework and System of Reality [FSR] by a group of humans, thus the resultant inference is objective, i.e. independent of the individual's opinion and beliefs.

There are various types of Philosophical Anti-Realists with different philosophies. In my case, I reduce the argument into the deeper psychology of the person and all those who take the similar stance [the theists, the philosophical realists, the philosophical anti-realist] activating different parts of the brain and the set of neurons.

I still don't relate to the fuzzy descriptions and interpretation of Kant here. I distinctly separate 'science' [instutitional or personal] as dealing with observations from 'logic' which is the actual 'mechanisms' of anything, whether it be our human reasoning or to Nature's 'reasoning'.
I've explained that I had to give up going against the present debates demarcating science from philosophy and logic.
So I clearly define the set of complexities that 'science' deals with to be generally about seeking understanding of nature (its logic), like one tearing apart a watch to try to determine how it works; whereas all mechanisms whether it be of nature OR of manipulation of symbols and data (analysis) as strictly the domain of logic.
Science uses a subset of logic to try to discover things also, but this logic is itself the analytical mechanisms, processes and inductions used to determine the actual machines of nature.
We use induction to practically narrow down what might be the mechanisms involved and then TEST the logic to see if its outputs when 'run' map to the observations as conclusions.
The reasoning of science then is to seek the patterns of nature, whereas logic is the functions of nature.
We also happen to use deduction alongside induction in science but is NOT itself 'science', the human endevour to discover the real underlying logic of the Universe.

I believe you are wrong to deduce or infer there is some sort of inherent or intrinsic "logic" within Nature or the Universe.

As I had argued, 'logic' is man-made to understand the reality [all there in] which humans are the co-creators.
Humans are the Co-Creators of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
As such there is no room for any intrinsic independent logic within reality - all-there-is.
Note humans are part-and-parcel of reality.

You separate the ontology from the epistemology. That's fine.
But science is intended to be more about the 'ontology' (reality) where logic is the means of the way we can find new conclusions 'epistemically' based on reality.
Because I also don't disagree with your perspective of the reverse of this by assigning metaphysics the area speaking about what reality itself is and treating outcomes from science as what we may call, 'knowledge', as the 'epistemological' parts.
Thus I cannot agree with the assigning of epistemology nor ontology uniquely to either logic or science exclusively. My descriptive distinction is simpler to me. Science is a subset of logic that deals specifically with finding premises based on observations, the induction used to guess at the deductive logic (mechanisms), and how we can pragmatically use the conclusions for external applications. Logic is primarily the deduced consistent machines that don't require addressing (normally) the inputs' soundness. I CAN do this for logical tautologies. And if we understand that nature is itself a 'logic', then it is reasonable to presume we might discover within logic itself how nature takes nothing as inputs to derive outputs that are real.

There is nothing more to Science than it is only limited and conditioned upon its Framework, System and Methods, with its stated assumptions.
The main thrust of the Scientific Method is inferring inductive knowledge from empirical observation, that is all it does.

The nearest science does with ontology is merely to ASSUME that is an objective reality to the things science is trying to discover.

"[Philosophical] Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
-the reality which is merely assumed but never realizable as real.

The ultimate 'model' of reality IS the reality itself.
But these themselves cannot be realized without recognizing that the laws of nature, including its mechanisms, have to take something 'untouchable' (intangible) to something that is 'touchable'. It's either that or you presume an infinite regress of 'touchable' (tangible) features no matter how deep you penetrate it through science.
It is thus necessary to recognize that this is a bias that presumes that if we cannot 'touch' it, it is not real AND that there will always be infinitely new 'touchables' the more precise we get.
The problem with this logic is that the sense of 'touch' is limited to the very physics that make 'touch' possible. I'm interested in the ultimate logic(s) that nature itself is manifest from, the patterns of non-physical factors that DEFINE what is physical. This has to be an 'untouchable' set of inputs or things like 'touch' would not be reducible. That is, something like the sense of touch would be itself an 'elemental' atomic particle!??
This to me is more irrational and 'religious-like' for humans who believe that setting limits on what we are permitted to address. These are 'taboos' that are politically defined that keep humans at its center.

As I had stated, what is science is limited and conditioned to the scientific framework and system, where ultimate objective reality is merely assumed.

It is not a question of 'touch' but science can only assert what it can do within its specific limits, i.e. rely on observations and induction with an assumption of ultimate objective reality.

So 'science' is limited to being a politic regarding practical concerns used to eventually create new technologies that appeal to us for various human purposes.
But to assume that the philosophy apart from official science is NOT-practical enough for consideration in discovering more things about both the ultimate 'inputs' of reality AND its mechanisms (the logic of nature itself) is begging that, like your concern that I might have some 'pychological' irrational motives for seeking, the search for absolute universal truths is a 'bad' or ill-conceived activity itself.

Wonder why you associate 'politic' with 'science'? Both are intellectually unconflatable unequivocable.

It is critical to refer science to its specific framework and system wherein it merely ASSUME there is an ultimate objective reality which cannot be discovered by the scientific method.
If ultimate reality is merely assumed, how can you turned it into a potential conclusion for science.

To gate crashed and relying on science to discover the ultimate reality which is merely assumed, would lead one into pseudo-science.

So rounding back to the beginning of this post, seeking for absolutes regarding Totality may not be 'necessary' for many, but is itself not grounds to presume those seeking them have some illness.
You can be sure that any thinking is NOT 'normal' for all animals and that we need some real motivational BARRIERS that can must TRIGGER one's pychology enough to make them LOOK deeper into things. But who is actually 'ill' of mind?
The obsessive thinkers throughout time have ALWAYS had some relative psychological motivation; but they are also the same ones who made human evolution to BE more 'intellectual' at all. We are not 'normal' for being intelligent. It requires some force due to some real barriers that lead to dissonance that then acts as the motivating factor for intellectual pursuits. The majority of anti-intellectual and pro-emotional 'normal' people owe their present comforts due to technology and wisdom from the minority of the apparent insanity of the obsessive thinkers'.

Note again, I do not presume the question of mental illness at all.
It is just that different people react differently [psychologically] in seeking consonance in relieving the inherent existential dissonance in ALL humans.

I mentioned Buddhism earlier, where Buddhism recognizes the existential dissonance head on with conscious deliberation and seek alternatives to deal with the existential dissonance. Others like Buddhism are doing the same with conscious awareness that they are addressing the existential dissonance within them.

In the Buddha Story [myth], it is told, Gautama's inherent existential dissonance was heightened to the conscious level when he saw, a sick person, a very old person, a corpse, demonstrating potential death and real death. Acknowledging that conscious level of existential dissonance, Gautama set out to seek consonance by dealing with the root causes of empirical reality to relief the inherent existential dissonance, which he eventually discovered as the CORE philosophies and practices of Buddhism.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

Theists and philosophical realists prefer to seek consonance from the transcendental external [non-empirical ultimate] instead of dealing with their internal psychology.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Point is Nature and Reality [all there is] do not exists independent without any interaction with the human conditions.

This issue has been debated ever since Philosophy emerged within human consciousness, note, Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism.

Your stance is that of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
I take the Philosophical Anti-Realism stance, i.e. the Empirical Realism re Kant.

I understand from your response here that you take a type of 'anthropic principle' as a stance. That is, you assume that no one who argues is permitted to argue without our bias to human concerns. Thus you are imposing a politic,....an 'etiquette' of behavior you believe limits us to accept arguments that don't have a human-centered mindset?

I see how you presume me as having some mental illness of thought processes here. You only see the practical realities as being required absolutely in the way people of the ancient past used to question the reasoning of those who taught geometry. The same socio-political behaviors of the past only prevented progress because they see things as requiring IMMEDIATE meaning. Euclid may have had difficulties 'selling' to others why the logical processes of thought that he goes into his "Elements" were essential to reasoning because they appeared to be NON-EXPEDIENT justifications to invest in.

I think it was Archimedes (?) who is granted credit for offering to pay someone to learn geometry because the skeptic he was offering to teach could not see the 'practical and expedient' reasons that the process of thought itself mattered.
While I'm sure you think that this is not the same, it is. I can't 'prove' to you THAT something non-tangible can manifest reality if you simply refuse the possibility in its entirety. If you are limited, then accept it as your own, not mine. I take the 'math(logic)-is-reality' position that manifests physical reality.
Otherwise you end up with the same infinite regress for presuming the definition of 'gods' to be the 'real' tangible limits of inquiry. Note that "Absolutely Nothing" is NOT something one thinks of their 'gods', ....ONLY either an Absolute One or Absolute Infinite, but NEVER an Absolute Nothing!!
This point is required in anticipation that you might think that my 'absolute nothing' is some kind of religious insanity.
I assure you that your presumptions of my position as being of 'crisis' that leads to religion is only due to those who REJECT nothing as possible as an origin OR to any instances of 'nothing' elsewhere in reality. The lack of understanding the nature of 'contradictions' and 'paradoxes' has made many turn TO religion. I have no possible chance from where I argue from to devolve to religious processes.

In a way , my approach is not 'anthropic' but not to the extend of the 'Anthropic Argument' for God.

Again, what is discussed here has nothing with 'mental illness' but the individual and class of people dealing with the idea of reality differently and involving different psychological approaches and parts of the brain.

Wow, I didn't even get a chance to express it in that mere paragraph. But I understand that this is due to the barrier of reasoning that you cannot accept that is 'necessary' to the theory and not speaking of what the theory could propose.

I think you have an enthymeme regarding "nothing" and "absolutes", like Age has in discussing this too, that may be something like,

[1] "All things are 'caused' by something and never nothing."

And given you interpret "Absolute Nothing" as meaning it also has to STAY true consistently (another issue I'm discussing with Skepdick), you assume,

[2] "Logic is ONLY the functioning creation of humans such that it is not permitted to 'prove' anything with symbolic apriori inputs that lack referents to tangible reality."

As to [1] and [2] above, if this is an accepted interpretation of an underlying set of assumptions you hold, then you may be hesitant to question things that cannot demonstrate something in the abscence of TIME, with the most significance. What I could do is try to show you how you CAN describe time as another spacial dimension such that you can (in principle) have a STATIC representation equivalent to reality WITHOUT considering actual time. I can extend this to all possible dimensions such that a Universe can be describable (in principle) as a non-changing constant 'structure' [defined in terms of logic]. Then, given you can interpret the 'symbols' used as merely symbols, the model it represents CAN be equivalent to the reality where the symbols merely point-to absolutes that cannot themselves be penetrated for discovery.

The most 'atomic' element in all of physics is space itself. And if you could understand that each point is itself not required to reference the unreferencable, like Absolutes in general are, you can use the description of points ONLY to sufficiently describe all of reality. You just keep the Absolutes contained as perfectly indeterminate which, if possible to open, CAN be anything. The behaviors POSSIBLE to describing a system based ONLY on points (or pointers) suffices to both explain reality and is what reality itself would BEHAVE like, without concern to 'what' they are.

Atoms were once thought to be the 'minimal unit' to which one could have assigned a symbol that points-to the reality without directly speaking about what it could mean. Then the BEHAVIOR described suffices to speak about the reality. When we discovered contradictions that pointed to something MORE existing inside of atoms, then the newer proposed subparticles become the new 'points' because we have basically found a means to OPEN what we thought prior to be unopenable before. The 'containers' here are all that matters and the description of how these containers behave are all that is needed.

I have discovered a UNIQUE way to describe reality using only the points as being ONE concept [as a class], namely 'pointers' themselves that at some degree end on some absolute that cannot be opened but act with all the same properties that the points themselves are describable as.

For instance, if you recognize that all we base science on is of descriptions entailing points (undefined) that we describe using math and geometry, then while the map may not BE the reality, at some point, the reality and SOME 'model' exist that is representable as itself.

One way that would help is if you at first POSTULATED the "Absolute Nothing", without questioning whether it means anything real and then see how it CAN lead to a universal means of describing reality. Then, as long as the description matches satisfactorily, you could at least be comfortable with using the logic without being tied up into whether the pointers themselves ARE the reality.

I'll attempt to do this if you want. I mean to eventually anyways. That way you may at least see how the logic I use is POSSIBLE to be representative of Nature's mechanics [it logic].

[Note I read the whole post but all I said here covers what would answer any relevant issues you've raised so far.]

Edit note: I also read the followup post to which I believe the contents above would need to be satisfied in order to bother wasting time on the other dependent issues.

I stated your TOE is not tenable nor realistic because I have reduced your stance to that of Philosophical Realism.
Thus whatever your conclusion therefrom, it will not be realistic.

Note my thread on
All Philosophies are Reduced to Philosophical Realism vs Philosophical anti-Realism [Idealism]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

[Scott Mayers]

Point is Nature and Reality [all there is] do not exists independent without any interaction with the human conditions.

This issue has been debated ever since Philosophy emerged within human consciousness, note, Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism.

Your stance is that of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
I take the Philosophical Anti-Realism stance, i.e. the Empirical Realism re Kant.

I understand from your response here that you take a type of 'anthropic principle' as a stance. That is, you assume that no one who argues is permitted to argue without our bias to human concerns. Thus you are imposing a politic,....an 'etiquette' of behavior you believe limits us to accept arguments that don't have a human-centered mindset?

I see how you presume me as having some mental illness of thought processes here. You only see the practical realities as being required absolutely in the way people of the ancient past used to question the reasoning of those who taught geometry. The same socio-political behaviors of the past only prevented progress because they see things as requiring IMMEDIATE meaning. Euclid may have had difficulties 'selling' to others why the logical processes of thought that he goes into his "Elements" were essential to reasoning because they appeared to be NON-EXPEDIENT justifications to invest in.

I think it was Archimedes (?) who is granted credit for offering to pay someone to learn geometry because the skeptic he was offering to teach could not see the 'practical and expedient' reasons that the process of thought itself mattered.
While I'm sure you think that this is not the same, it is. I can't 'prove' to you THAT something non-tangible can manifest reality if you simply refuse the possibility in its entirety. If you are limited, then accept it as your own, not mine. I take the 'math(logic)-is-reality' position that manifests physical reality.
Otherwise you end up with the same infinite regress for presuming the definition of 'gods' to be the 'real' tangible limits of inquiry. Note that "Absolutely Nothing" is NOT something one thinks of their 'gods', ....ONLY either an Absolute One or Absolute Infinite, but NEVER an Absolute Nothing!!
This point is required in anticipation that you might think that my 'absolute nothing' is some kind of religious insanity.
I assure you that your presumptions of my position as being of 'crisis' that leads to religion is only due to those who REJECT nothing as possible as an origin OR to any instances of 'nothing' elsewhere in reality. The lack of understanding the nature of 'contradictions' and 'paradoxes' has made many turn TO religion. I have no possible chance from where I argue from to devolve to religious processes.

In a way , my approach is not 'anthropic' but not to the extend of the 'Anthropic Argument' for God.

Again, what is discussed here has nothing with 'mental illness' but the individual and class of people dealing with the idea of reality differently and involving different psychological approaches and parts of the brain.

Wow, I didn't even get a chance to express it in that mere paragraph. But I understand that this is due to the barrier of reasoning that you cannot accept that is 'necessary' to the theory and not speaking of what the theory could propose.

I think you have an enthymeme regarding "nothing" and "absolutes", like Age has in discussing this too, that may be something like,

[1] "All things are 'caused' by something and never nothing."

And given you interpret "Absolute Nothing" as meaning it also has to STAY true consistently (another issue I'm discussing with Skepdick), you assume,

[2] "Logic is ONLY the functioning creation of humans such that it is not permitted to 'prove' anything with symbolic apriori inputs that lack referents to tangible reality."

As to [1] and [2] above, if this is an accepted interpretation of an underlying set of assumptions you hold, then you may be hesitant to question things that cannot demonstrate something in the abscence of TIME, with the most significance. What I could do is try to show you how you CAN describe time as another spacial dimension such that you can (in principle) have a STATIC representation equivalent to reality WITHOUT considering actual time. I can extend this to all possible dimensions such that a Universe can be describable (in principle) as a non-changing constant 'structure' [defined in terms of logic]. Then, given you can interpret the 'symbols' used as merely symbols, the model it represents CAN be equivalent to the reality where the symbols merely point-to absolutes that cannot themselves be penetrated for discovery.

The most 'atomic' element in all of physics is space itself. And if you could understand that each point is itself not required to reference the unreferencable, like Absolutes in general are, you can use the description of points ONLY to sufficiently describe all of reality. You just keep the Absolutes contained as perfectly indeterminate which, if possible to open, CAN be anything. The behaviors POSSIBLE to describing a system based ONLY on points (or pointers) suffices to both explain reality and is what reality itself would BEHAVE like, without concern to 'what' they are.

Atoms were once thought to be the 'minimal unit' to which one could have assigned a symbol that points-to the reality without directly speaking about what it could mean. Then the BEHAVIOR described suffices to speak about the reality. When we discovered contradictions that pointed to something MORE existing inside of atoms, then the newer proposed subparticles become the new 'points' because we have basically found a means to OPEN what we thought prior to be unopenable before. The 'containers' here are all that matters and the description of how these containers behave are all that is needed.

I have discovered a UNIQUE way to describe reality using only the points as being ONE concept [as a class], namely 'pointers' themselves that at some degree end on some absolute that cannot be opened but act with all the same properties that the points themselves are describable as.

For instance, if you recognize that all we base science on is of descriptions entailing points (undefined) that we describe using math and geometry, then while the map may not BE the reality, at some point, the reality and SOME 'model' exist that is representable as itself.

One way that would help is if you at first POSTULATED the "Absolute Nothing", without questioning whether it means anything real and then see how it CAN lead to a universal means of describing reality. Then, as long as the description matches satisfactorily, you could at least be comfortable with using the logic without being tied up into whether the pointers themselves ARE the reality.

I'll attempt to do this if you want. I mean to eventually anyways. That way you may at least see how the logic I use is POSSIBLE to be representative of Nature's mechanics [it logic].

[Note I read the whole post but all I said here covers what would answer any relevant issues you've raised so far.]

Edit note: I also read the followup post to which I believe the contents above would need to be satisfied in order to bother wasting time on the other dependent issues.

I stated your TOE is not tenable nor realistic because I have reduced your stance to that of Philosophical Realism.
Thus whatever your conclusion therefrom, it will not be realistic.

Note my thread on
All Philosophies are Reduced to Philosophical Realism vs Philosophical anti-Realism [Idealism]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

I'm not interested in OTHER people's collective set of complex thoughts. That is, looking at the wikipedia definitions of 'realist' versus 'anti-realist', I share some tidbits of each and not all of either. That is, those are COLLECTIVE definitions of other people's philosophy's. How you assume that I'm the 'realist' of your defintions doesn't jive with me. You need to express HOW particularly you think I have some problem, not grant me as belonging to some whole class of philosophy that I do not endorse.

My arguments do not fit in with your classifications at all. But besides these, I don't see the logical points of contention. HOW are you disqualifying my arguments by resorting to other people's classifications and definitions wholescale? That is, I want a specific reasoning that you have an issue with that I mentioned above. The bolded statements? Did I not correctly express your particular underlying bias correctly?

I believe you are wrong to deduce or infer there is some sort of inherent or intrinsic "logic" within Nature or the Universe.

As I had argued, 'logic' is man-made to understand the reality [all there in] which humans are the co-creators.
Humans are the Co-Creators of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
As such there is no room for any intrinsic independent logic within reality - all-there-is.
Note humans are part-and-parcel of reality.

This crosses issues. I argue FROM within a logic-based world. The whole, ...Totality, is itself non-biased to logic because it completely covers every possible world consistent or not.

I also disagree to presuming we invented logic as though it is just finger painting. And I find this absurdly irrational. Why should not religious reasoning suffice, if logic is just a mere 'artificial' construct? We are not talking about the logic of a Monopoly game here.

I'm not getting anywhere here. I'm not sure why I am wasting my time.? I can't get past 'go'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I stated your TOE is not tenable nor realistic because I have reduced your stance to that of Philosophical Realism.
Thus whatever your conclusion therefrom, it will not be realistic.

Note my thread on
All Philosophies are Reduced to Philosophical Realism vs Philosophical anti-Realism [Idealism]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

I'm not interested in OTHER people's collective set of complex thoughts. That is, looking at the wikipedia definitions of 'realist' versus 'anti-realist', I share some tidbits of each and not all of either. That is, those are COLLECTIVE definitions of other people's philosophy's. How you assume that I'm the 'realist' of your defintions doesn't jive with me. You need to express HOW particularly you think I have some problem, not grant me as belonging to some whole class of philosophy that I do not endorse.

My arguments do not fit in with your classifications at all. But besides these, I don't see the logical points of contention. HOW are you disqualifying my arguments by resorting to other people's classifications and definitions wholescale? That is, I want a specific reasoning that you have an issue with that I mentioned above. The bolded statements? Did I not correctly express your particular underlying bias correctly?

I believe you are wrong to deduce or infer there is some sort of inherent or intrinsic "logic" within Nature or the Universe.

As I had argued, 'logic' is man-made to understand the reality [all there in] which humans are the co-creators.
Humans are the Co-Creators of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
As such there is no room for any intrinsic independent logic within reality - all-there-is.
Note humans are part-and-parcel of reality.

This crosses issues. I argue FROM within a logic-based world. The whole, ...Totality, is itself non-biased to logic because it completely covers every possible world consistent or not.

I also disagree to presuming we invented logic as though it is just finger painting. And I find this absurdly irrational. Why should not religious reasoning suffice, if logic is just a mere 'artificial' construct? We are not talking about the logic of a Monopoly game here.

I'm not getting anywhere here. I'm not sure why I am wasting my time.? I can't get past 'go'.

Re Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism, the contentions between the two groups has been raised since philosophy first emerge in the times of the BCE i.e. in Western and Eastern philosophies and elsewhere.

What is presented in Wiki is merely a rough sketch.

Each of the above has their core beliefs which are generic to each class.
If you do further research on the above, you may get the main points.

I agree we stop the discussion now until our views cross again, perhaps until there is more clearer mode to be discussed about.

[Skepdick]

You don't get that the FOUNDATION of logic is dependent FIRST on those three rules.

And you don't get that it's not THE foundation.
It's A foundation.

Rules maketh logic.
Different rules maketh a different logic.

You can alter how you device a more comprehensive logic but only by BEGINNING with the foundations.

I can also devise a more comprehensive logic by throwing your foundations in the trashcan and choosing different foundations.

I'm not sure how you think this cannot occur?

Trivially. With Inductive types.

You can't even assert me as having any informal fallacies, like 'equivocation', when that too is based on understanding what is improperly being treated as equal when not.

"equivocation" is a meaningless notion when "equality" is polymorphic.

The very arguments used to express a need for multivariable systems does so using things like propositional and predicate logic using our words. Once 'convinced', then those new systems are created.

You argue with yourself to convince yourself that you need a new systems?

I just build stuff to meet my needs.

The idea of showing that the normal contradictions tossed out still STAY in Totality means that you CAN still use what is normally placed aside by SPLITTING the system

How "splitting" THE system? That's impossible since it's a single system.

. So, for instance, if you come across a paradox in science (which could be just an error of perspective), you are forced to KEEP it unless you can resolve it. The only way to resolve it is to split the system at where one normally eliminates it. So if you come across a contradiction that is normally rejected, use the present system (present machine) to deal with non-contradicting result (as normal) but have a separate system take the opposing value.

Or I can design a system that accommodates contradictions and accepts both values. It's just superposition.

If A & not-A is discovered upon some assumption, say B, then normally this proves not-B. If it is still necessarily true that B, then not-B is kept in the present system (as a denial due to contradiction) and B is sent as input to the new machine where it adds one value to the system's variables and then 'runs' it. If it still runs into a new contradiction, it can then be spit again.

Or it can be expressed as a Qubit. It's both B and not-B with a corresponding probability-density function.

All computers that have parallel processing (all nowadays) has a 'master' CPU that initiates the system but then splits into two or more other CPUs (cores) to operate in parallel. These are examples of using the SAME 'logic' form for each core but they don't have to. The 'quantum computers', for instance, are designed to have each gate permit three valued logics, ...for the Q-bit design, they use -1, 0, an 1, where -1 refers to current going opposite to 1 and the 0 is the normal static position.

And that is sufficient to implement a many-valued logic. Because the Qubit states can be represented as a probability distribution.

[Scott Mayers]

I stated your TOE is not tenable nor realistic because I have reduced your stance to that of Philosophical Realism.
Thus whatever your conclusion therefrom, it will not be realistic.

Note my thread on
All Philosophies are Reduced to Philosophical Realism vs Philosophical anti-Realism [Idealism]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

I'm not interested in OTHER people's collective set of complex thoughts. That is, looking at the wikipedia definitions of 'realist' versus 'anti-realist', I share some tidbits of each and not all of either. That is, those are COLLECTIVE definitions of other people's philosophy's. How you assume that I'm the 'realist' of your defintions doesn't jive with me. You need to express HOW particularly you think I have some problem, not grant me as belonging to some whole class of philosophy that I do not endorse.

My arguments do not fit in with your classifications at all. But besides these, I don't see the logical points of contention. HOW are you disqualifying my arguments by resorting to other people's classifications and definitions wholescale? That is, I want a specific reasoning that you have an issue with that I mentioned above. The bolded statements? Did I not correctly express your particular underlying bias correctly?

I believe you are wrong to deduce or infer there is some sort of inherent or intrinsic "logic" within Nature or the Universe.

As I had argued, 'logic' is man-made to understand the reality [all there in] which humans are the co-creators.
Humans are the Co-Creators of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
As such there is no room for any intrinsic independent logic within reality - all-there-is.
Note humans are part-and-parcel of reality.

This crosses issues. I argue FROM within a logic-based world. The whole, ...Totality, is itself non-biased to logic because it completely covers every possible world consistent or not.

I also disagree to presuming we invented logic as though it is just finger painting. And I find this absurdly irrational. Why should not religious reasoning suffice, if logic is just a mere 'artificial' construct? We are not talking about the logic of a Monopoly game here.

I'm not getting anywhere here. I'm not sure why I am wasting my time.? I can't get past 'go'.

Re Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism, the contentions between the two groups has been raised since philosophy first emerge in the times of the BCE i.e. in Western and Eastern philosophies and elsewhere.

What is presented in Wiki is merely a rough sketch.

Each of the above has their core beliefs which are generic to each class.
If you do further research on the above, you may get the main points.

I agree we stop the discussion now until our views cross again, perhaps until there is more clearer mode to be discussed about.

I don't have an issue with what I'm talking about. I am troubled that I keep getting side-tracked to have to deal with OTHER people's works. Philosophy doesn't require one to take wholesale some other philosopher or group of philosopher's definitions that tie in a whole bunch of garbage, like how selecting only from two or three parties in which one is forced to accept their wholesale platform as set in stone, something I hate about politics.

I looked at your source definitions and do not fit in with any of them even though I agree to some parts of each. As such, they are 'party platform'-like as I described. And you are trying to fit me in with a selection of yours that you may interpret as sufficiently organizing philosophical views of people with clarity but they don't. This goes the same for interpretation of other people's works. So it makes it worse for me to argue in terms that perfectly defeat me for not fitting in with any of those prior author's ways of classifying things.

I don't need research on those 'platform'-like beliefs and if I had to digress to them, I may as well not be here at all. I'm having a similar issue with arguing here with others regarding politics and religion. No one is willing to strip down to the basics. Even 'Age' here who pretends she does, proves to be perfectly oppositional regardless of whether she appeared to 'agree' or 'disagree' to something prior.
==============
My simple argument here places a foundation to Totality without a need for some 'god' nor 'human' at this place. This place, for not being able to find a term for it that people cannot seem to push 'time' into its meaning that I do not, is "Absolutely Nothing" and contrasts itself from "Absolutely Something" and "Absolutely Everything", as the only closed set of possible options (without delving into things like levels of infinites or infinitesimals). I also do not agree to the physicist's whom I partially agree with but who believe that we can only speak on THIS Universe for the reason I don't approve of "absolutely some-SPECIFIC-thing" of Totality: it is politics and religious to me to assume ONE universe without it implying these 'special' states. [Any finite set of 'things' regarding Totality is a special subset of the whole, or a universal in terms of logic.]

The reason 'absolutes' are needed is because I am wanting to begin at the core, or root, or origin, or background which are universally necessary FOR 'causation' issues. In order to try to show how Nature operates universally in an argument that intends to prove you CAN find a universal logical way to contruct reality WITHOUT resort to our biased pre-observed world, requires dealing with the most general of the general of the general class that encompasses ALL universals (universes). I know we are biased to communicate from where we are, but the logic here is to show that something CAN derive from no apriori Something which begs what this 'something' (or set of somethings) are. When you argue for an absolute strict state of 'nothing', it lacks the issues that reduce to religious or political bias that has kept logic as though it is a proprietary HUMAN-owned calculator. If Nature has no 'author', this non-author concept has to be NOTHING. The reason ancient science and secular thought HAS reduced to the modern virus of religions is due most specifically to the inability to separate the 'human' bias from the picture.

I don't think it a stretch to extend the concept of Absolute Nothing from mere Nothing because technically all forms of 'nothings' relative or absolute, are literally identical by OUR perspective. When someone presumes unicorns' as non-existing, they mean it is not in OUR world, not that it as a concept would be absurd. Narwals have spiral horns, horses are the basis for this creature, ...so unicorns are realistically possible and thus cannot be ruled out in all possible worlds. This is a 'relative nothing' because it COULD exist still in another world but we cannot determine it.

Even the religious person's God and their particular (special) history assigned to it, though you and I would agree is 'false', fits into the class 'relative nothing' because it is made up through the human minds. Our minds are real, even if one is delusionally seeing things. BECAUSE I am trying to argue from an UNBIASED position that doesn't rule out the strangest of people's beliefs about what might be, we need a PLACE or SUBCLASS to contain all that is 'empty' or devoid of meaning or reality that if understood fits under the same banner of Totality, would NOT be tossed out prematurely. This is why I opted for "Totality" to be defined as being absolutely containing of all, including absolutely nothing. That way, when we deem something irrational or false, that it doesn't bias these to at be in the COMPLEMENT of our idea of 'true' but still within Totality.

Totality is the only concept we can consider 'Absolutely One' in the set of absolutes I gave that is complete and exhaustive of what is possible to all universes (or non-existing ones). Then the question about absolute nothing versus absolutely everything can be addressed.

I argue reality from the Absolute Nothing in the same way Set theory uses the 'empty set'. All 'nothings' (IN FACT) are identical but our judgement of what is or is not is SPECIFICALLY 'nothing' through science proper or one's capacity to reason from what we know, MAY BE WRONG because we cannot escape THIS universe to prove so. To me, assuming Absolutely Everything should be easier for most to identify as also the Absolute One, as Totality is, given you can intellectually interpret a continuum of divisions of this one. So then the only remaining concept is the Absolute Nothing. But if you agree to Totality as being Absolutely One, and Absolutely Everything, it has to also have Absolute Nothing because,

(Absolute Nothing) x (Absolute Infinity) = Absolute One [each and all of these as Totality by this form(ula)].

While this is confusing if we think of something locally (relatively), it isn't with respect to the extremes. This HAS to be the case whether I get agreement on this or not, because Totality is NOT some 'god'. Even admitting of ONE 'special' thing, or SET of 'special things' (like the '42' things from "The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Universe" mockingly suggested. [See that link's Wikipedia entry, , under the subsection, "42, or The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything" for a bit more on this if you haven't read it.]

Given you are NOT religious, as I, then interpret this to mean that reality can come from NO SOURCE, of which I just label it as "Absolutely Nothing". I choose to use the term to be inclusive though of those who do NOT think of this as the case, like one who defines their 'god' as having this property (at maximum minus the particular history as it relates to humans). Because science is a 'politic', meaning that it exists as a collective of people who vote on what they 'observe' and never can you find ALL people to agree to the same interpretations, say for instance, to define Pluto as a 'planet' or not, I need a way to define the most universal concepts we agree to in principle to all to make a connection of logic and science into ONE shared system.

The 'laws of science' are a subset of 'universal laws', which are in turn at minimal, a subset of Absolute 'law' (or inclusively as 'lawless' when Absolute Nothing is considered). Scientists would NOT look at my theory, not even a glance, without it being put through a set of 'censors' (the review personel) who define what IS and IS NOT prerequisite to 'observations' and to the conventions expected of the institutes. [I don't get why anyone would NOT recognize the 'politics' given even this much as accepted is true?]

You don't have to believe that there are 'objects' outside of your solipsistic perspective of the world because these have to be true of ALL things, including whatever you are perceiving is 'true' for yourself. Thus you MAY think of different philosophical approaches but when discussing absolutely universal things, it all comes down to the same thing. I didn't think that I'd have to learn each person's perspective view here any more than I should require having to learn each and every religion in order to explain something from each BIASED view because I'm being most universally inclusive. If one argues against it, fine. But then they are just implying and imposing other philosophical dialect as relevant to this and/or are wanting to debate terms. Some tend to just recycle the same crap over and over in a way that I can't tell if they are just toying with me or being serious. [Age here has been doing that and why I cannot continue to appeal to her posts.]

I know this is my onus to prove and certainly am not an expert at social appeal in my writing. So I am sure that I am as much at fault here. But I'm burning out on this given, like I said, I cannot get this initialized. The amount of depth that I'd have to go into would take hundreds of years at this rate. And if that has to be the case, then I have to determine whether I should bother. I cannot do this alone any more than all of the world has built up knowledge of millions to get where we are today. And I cannot get past this essential part. I am sure that even if I don't, somebodies probably will at some future time if the politics are able to be removed. Maybe I'm in the wrong time and place for this? So be it. I just need to get further than this to even be able to properly present my theory even in an outline before I die. [And I don't think I have more than 10 years at tops given my health.]

I don't know what else to say. I asked some to just postulate it (a pretense) for the sake of at least seeing how it MIGHT lead to something more and that gets shot down too. So I'm discouraged here.

[Scott Mayers]

You don't get that the FOUNDATION of logic is dependent FIRST on those three rules.

And you don't get that it's not THE foundation.
It's A foundation.

Rules maketh logic.
Different rules maketh a different logic.

You have a misunderstanding that I don't care to delve into far here. If you disagree, then so be it. But unless you CAN lay out all the possible initial options so that I can see whatever you could possibly mean, then I cannot argue further. You are asserting 'alternates' where none is needed at this level, contrary to you OR others who may have of the same thought processes. I studied many different logic systems and one of the most annoying things to come across are the books that try to dislodge some of the foundations before them when they clearly haven't themselves studied those 'traditional' works. They then make a lot of political-like campaignes of destruction of the others by misappropriating the meanings. To me, comes across as a type of argument for inclusion of Biblical 'theory' along side Evolution in text books simply on the basis that they CLAIM they have an 'alternate science' foundation which matters.

You can alter how you device a more comprehensive logic but only by BEGINNING with the foundations.

I can also devise a more comprehensive logic by throwing your foundations in the trashcan and choosing different foundations.

Yes, you can start speaking Chinese, for instance. The artificial forms of communicating do not mean that the foundational math or logic differs underneath. In Canada, they think this too with respect to 'culture' and speak of an 'alternative math' and science for different people as though there is perfect distinction in the underlying meaning. It's absurd to me. The OPINIONS of people's methods of reasoning differ about how nature operates. Yet do you actually think that nature has different physical laws just because we cannot agree to them?

You are welcome to disagree. But put your money where your mouth is and PROVE what you mean. Tell me what a system would be like that has NO rule about the identity of things. Note it is the FACT that an IDENTITY rule exists that matters. You also need a rule of distinction that helps define what identity of one thing is that differs from another, AND, you need to do this in a way that 'playing the game' of this system STICKS to those rules (called, 'consistency'). You are debating the 'art' of reasoning, not the 'science' of it. The 'art' would be like whether one opts to use C++ or Python to code with. But the underlying logic of ALL computers that use these, is the architectural laws that themselves MUST be consistent to the physics that all built computers are required to do. The three basic rules of logic are just the foundation and DEFINITION of 'logic' that demarcate it from mere chaotic inconsistent or random thought. It isn't disrespecting that 'inconsistent and random thoughts' lack reality. In fact, you can USE logic to show how something is inconsistent or random and even use it to take out what is salvageable FROM that 'chaos'.

I'm not sure how you think this cannot occur?

Trivially. With Inductive types.

I doubt you are using 'trivially' based on logical means: "Trivial" in logic means accepting 'contradiction', a COMPLEMENTARY validation of the third possibility. But this requires BOTH the acceptance OF the law PLUS a denial (that complementary being accepted) to be true. This is an extension of binary values, like 'true' or 'false' to include 'true&false' (that 'third' rule). The traditional logic defined that rule for CONSISTENT reasoning of which you CAN add extra postulates to DEAL WITH the contradictions instead of tossing them out.

Ironically, what I am arguing on logic of this thread REQUIRES recognizing "inconsistency" with respect to Totality. So if you disagree with my acceptance of the traditional set of the three rules because you think the language is arbitary, then how does it matter THAT I begin on those rules as is? I have no problem showing how something CAN be both 'inconsistent' AND 'real'. The Incompleteness theorems required to prove these. So I don't know your problem here?

The idea of showing that the normal contradictions tossed out still STAY in Totality means that you CAN still use what is normally placed aside by SPLITTING the system

How "splitting" THE system? That's impossible since it's a single system.

No. Predicate Calculus is completely dependent upon Propositional Calculus, for instance.

A 'logic' can be any set of devices or distinct tools that you use to contruct another logic, just as languages like C++ compilers (or for a better example, Java) are built by 'splitting' the various different architectures FROM a generic higher-order language. The program when compiled actually makes a SET of different programs that get LINKED when run to the particular architecture of the computer hardware you are running it on. This is the same for 'drivers' that have a set of a variety of programs within one that then narrows down to the one that works on your system and ignores (or can eliminate) the others.

The logic to make particular components of a car get combined into the logic of 'assembly' lines that tie them altogether.

The 'single' system as a whole to Totality IS 'trivial' in that it is most inclusive of all systems by allowing for the extension of 'allowance' of contradiction. It 'splits' because NO 'logic' (by definition) is required if Absolutely Nothing existed. The contradiction it represents forces a 'split' into consistent worlds, inconsistent worlds, and combinations ('contingent' is often used for this if at least ONE thing is consistent and ONE thing inconsistent)

. So, for instance, if you come across a paradox in science (which could be just an error of perspective), you are forced to KEEP it unless you can resolve it. The only way to resolve it is to split the system at where one normally eliminates it. So if you come across a contradiction that is normally rejected, use the present system (present machine) to deal with non-contradicting result (as normal) but have a separate system take the opposing value.

Or I can design a system that accommodates contradictions and accepts both values. It's just superposition.

What's your distinction? Superposition means that two distinct things operate simultaneously. This is just 'splitting' something into two parallel logics. A computer still begins with the 'master' core when running a program and then separates two tasks to run in parallel. That would be just indifferent to running two programs through one Operating System. The OS is the 'master' control program to the two simultaneous programs you might have running on it.

[note that "Distinction without a difference" is a type of 'equivocation' fallacy to which you just made here by proper meaning. You thought you had a distinct non-equivalent example when it is equivalent in meaning to what I said.]

If A & not-A is discovered upon some assumption, say B, then normally this proves not-B. If it is still necessarily true that B, then not-B is kept in the present system (as a denial due to contradiction) and B is sent as input to the new machine where it adds one value to the system's variables and then 'runs' it. If it still runs into a new contradiction, it can then be spit again.

Or it can be expressed as a Qubit. It's both B and not-B with a corresponding probability-density function.

I know the architecture of Q-bits. (spelling?) It is actually just a system based on adding a variable (one) to the normal binary set of truth-values, logically. Architectually, however, they artificially create the illusion of this by using loops that permit the -1, 0, or +1 values AND add a set of these loops in a package to run parallel. That way, it can do more than one calculation at once, with the added power of three rather than two as in normal binary. Anything that can be done in these computers can be done in the default binary. They are just designed in a way to do more at once very quickly. The faults it has increases when adding new values to the architecture. So contrary to the hopeful, we will not ever have the magical machine type where actual 'superposition' is meant. It too has to be driven by some initiating logical master based on binary logic even if it could be designed. The 'Qubit' (Q-bit) architecture requires more energy for that extra bit and adds difficulty for circuitry designs to allow for alterating currents and prention of cross-talk (when electrons accelerate, they change the magnetic fields that can pentrate even insulators and so they require both separating the 'bits' of the q-bit element in a way that takes up much larger spaces than binary 'bits' can PLUS cool it down so that it can decrease the magnetic field effect as the conducting metal loops have less resistance at lower temperatures.

Note that most of the tech is being promoted real but is 'science fiction'. This is one of those issues that I have with the politics of scientific institutes. But I also take issue at what the proper QM interpretations are and how the same relates to interpretations on statistics.

All computers that have parallel processing (all nowadays) has a 'master' CPU that initiates the system but then splits into two or more other CPUs (cores) to operate in parallel. These are examples of using the SAME 'logic' form for each core but they don't have to. The 'quantum computers', for instance, are designed to have each gate permit three valued logics, ...for the Q-bit design, they use -1, 0, an 1, where -1 refers to current going opposite to 1 and the 0 is the normal static position.

And that is sufficient to implement a many-valued logic. Because the Qubit states can be represented as a probability distribution.

The logic of the Q-bit is NOT random, if this is what you meant. But see the last response.

[Age]

I'm not interested in OTHER people's collective set of complex thoughts. That is, looking at the wikipedia definitions of 'realist' versus 'anti-realist', I share some tidbits of each and not all of either. That is, those are COLLECTIVE definitions of other people's philosophy's. How you assume that I'm the 'realist' of your defintions doesn't jive with me. You need to express HOW particularly you think I have some problem, not grant me as belonging to some whole class of philosophy that I do not endorse.

My arguments do not fit in with your classifications at all. But besides these, I don't see the logical points of contention. HOW are you disqualifying my arguments by resorting to other people's classifications and definitions wholescale? That is, I want a specific reasoning that you have an issue with that I mentioned above. The bolded statements? Did I not correctly express your particular underlying bias correctly?


This crosses issues. I argue FROM within a logic-based world. The whole, ...Totality, is itself non-biased to logic because it completely covers every possible world consistent or not.

I also disagree to presuming we invented logic as though it is just finger painting. And I find this absurdly irrational. Why should not religious reasoning suffice, if logic is just a mere 'artificial' construct? We are not talking about the logic of a Monopoly game here.

I'm not getting anywhere here. I'm not sure why I am wasting my time.? I can't get past 'go'.

Re Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism, the contentions between the two groups has been raised since philosophy first emerge in the times of the BCE i.e. in Western and Eastern philosophies and elsewhere.

What is presented in Wiki is merely a rough sketch.

Each of the above has their core beliefs which are generic to each class.
If you do further research on the above, you may get the main points.

I agree we stop the discussion now until our views cross again, perhaps until there is more clearer mode to be discussed about.

I don't have an issue with what I'm talking about. I am troubled that I keep getting side-tracked to have to deal with OTHER people's works. Philosophy doesn't require one to take wholesale some other philosopher or group of philosopher's definitions that tie in a whole bunch of garbage, like how selecting only from two or three parties in which one is forced to accept their wholesale platform as set in stone, something I hate about politics.

I looked at your source definitions and do not fit in with any of them even though I agree to some parts of each. As such, they are 'party platform'-like as I described. And you are trying to fit me in with a selection of yours that you may interpret as sufficiently organizing philosophical views of people with clarity but they don't. This goes the same for interpretation of other people's works. So it makes it worse for me to argue in terms that perfectly defeat me for not fitting in with any of those prior author's ways of classifying things.

I don't need research on those 'platform'-like beliefs and if I had to digress to them, I may as well not be here at all. I'm having a similar issue with arguing here with others regarding politics and religion. No one is willing to strip down to the basics. Even 'Age' here who pretends she does, proves to be perfectly oppositional regardless of whether she appeared to 'agree' or 'disagree' to something prior.

I will delve down to the MOST 'basics' there is. After all it is from the very depths, deep down HERE, where True under-standing comes from, and where 'lies', themselves, are bared for ALL to SEE. So, YOUR CLAIM that "NO one is willing to strip down to the basics" is NOT true, as I have ALREADY STRIPPED DOWN to the MOST FUNDAMENTAL BASICS of ALL-THERE-IS.

Why do you not come and join 'me'?

Also, as for YOUR CLAIM that I "PROVE to be in perfect opposition", with you, regardless of whether I appeared to 'agree' or 'disagree' to something prior, then this is YOUR VIEW here, and NOT mine AT ALL. See, I KNOW what I am doing, and what I AM DOING is just saying things to put a SPOTLIGHT on how 'you', adult human beings, will just ASSUME the truth of things BEFORE you ACTUALLY CLARIFY what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, FIRST.

So, what 'you' SEE as being "perfectly oppositional", to you, is just me wording things in a way, which APPEARS, purposely, at FIRST GLANCE, to be IN OPPOSITION. But, IF CLARIFICATION is ever made, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN is that I am NOT ACTUALLY being, so called, "oppositional" AT ALL. I just write in ways to APPEAR this way, so that I have thee ACTUAL PROOF that IF CLARIFICATION WAS MADE FIRST, as my MAIN MESSAGE, in these forums, KEEPS REPEATING, THEN, and ONLY THEN, there would be NO 'opposition' AT ALL. Which, OPPOSITION, is what I am ACTUALLY POINTING OUT how to AVOID. See, IF, and when, 'you', adult human beings START DOING what I SUGGEST, then the VERY OPPOSITE of what you CLAIM here is what WILL HAPPEN and OCCUR. That is; Unity, or better still, and better worded, REUNIFICATION WILL BEGIN.

==============

My simple argument here places a foundation to Totality without a need for some 'god' nor 'human' at this place. This place, for not being able to find a term for it that people cannot seem to push 'time' into its meaning that I do not, is "Absolutely Nothing" and contrasts itself from "Absolutely Something" and "Absolutely Everything", as the only closed set of possible options (without delving into things like levels of infinites or infinitesimals).

BECAUSE 'you', "scott mayers", BELIEVE this WHOLEHEARTEDLY, then this is WHY you are NOT ABLE TO SEE the FACT that what YOU CLAIM here is NOT, and I will repeat, NOT the "only closed set of possible options".

You just say and CLAIM that 'that', what is in YOUR "simple argument", is the "only closed set of possible options". But WHY do you NOT want to delve into things like; infinity nor eternal? Are you AFRAID of what they will EXPOSE and REVEAL if you did delve into them? Or, is there some other reason WHY you appear to be COMPLETELY AFRAID TO?

By the way, one reason WHY you can NOT find a term for that place is BECAUSE 'that place' NEVER ACTUALLY EXISTED, and NEVER COULD ACTUALLY EXIST. This is BECAUSE of what thee Universe/Everything ACTUALLY IS and how 'It' ACTUALLY WORKS.

Furthermore, YOUR ARGUMENT is SO SIMPLE that all you are REALLY saying is just:
BEFORE 'Something' or 'Everything' came into existence, there was ABSOLUTELY 'Nothing'.

Which, if you you have NOT YET noticed or recognized is just SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, that REALLY it is NOT even worth saying.

And, if you think that YOUR "simple argument" here "places a foundation to Totality without a need for some 'god' nor 'human' at this place", then you could NOT be MORE True, MORE Right, AND MORE Correct, even if you DID NOT WANT TO BE.

But, THEN AGAIN, there NEVER was, NEVER IS, and NEVER will be a 'need' for ANY 'thing' to be at that 'place', which 'you' BELIEVE once existed.

I am ALL FOR 'simplicity', and I am ALL FOR keeping things as SIMPLE and as EASY as can POSSIBLY BE. However, we still have to LOOK AT the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. So, NOW, 'you' will just have to EXPLAIN HOW, it could possibly be, that a START of Everything, came from from a 'place' of Absolute Nothing, including a 'me', a God, nor ANY human, being?

I AWAIT YOUR CLARIFYING ANSWER.

I also do not agree to the physicist's whom I partially agree with but who believe that we can only speak on THIS Universe for the reason I don't approve of "absolutely some-SPECIFIC-thing" of Totality: it is politics and religious to me to assume ONE universe without it implying these 'special' states. [Any finite set of 'things' regarding Totality is a special subset of the whole, or a universal in terms of logic.]

The reason 'absolutes' are needed is because I am wanting to begin at the core, or root, or origin, or background which are universally necessary FOR 'causation' issues.

IF this is REALLY where to Truly 'want to begin', then WHY START where 'you' do?

In order to try to show how Nature operates universally in an argument that intends to prove you CAN find a universal logical way to contruct reality WITHOUT resort to our biased pre-observed world, requires dealing with the most general of the general of the general class that encompasses ALL universals (universes).

So, WHY are 'you' basing YOUR CLAIMS on your OWN ALREADY preexisting BIASES, which just came from YOUR OWN previous experiences/observations?

Also, WHY is the word 'universe' in the (brackets) have an 's' at the end of it?

Some might be inferring that this is a SIGN or a SIGNAL that we are about to SEE your OWN 'biases' come to the forefront. While, "others" are ALREADY SEEING YOUR 'biases' PERFECTLY CLEAR.

I know we are biased to communicate from where we are, but the logic here is to show that something CAN derive from no apriori Something which begs what this 'something' (or set of somethings) are.

This only "begs" 'this' IF one just "accepts" 'this'.

I AWAIT, patiently, to SEE just HOW 'you' are going to SHOW how Absolutely Everything CAME FROM Absolutely Nothing, AT ALL.

So, PLEASE feel FREE to BEGIN whenever you like.

When you argue for an absolute strict state of 'nothing', it lacks the issues that reduce to religious or political bias that has kept logic as though it is a proprietary HUMAN-owned calculator. If Nature has no 'author', this non-author concept has to be NOTHING. The reason ancient science and secular thought HAS reduced to the modern virus of religions is due most specifically to the inability to separate the 'human' bias from the picture.

AND, what you just said here is a PICTURE PERFECT EXAMPLE of HOW and WHY most of 'you', adult human beings, have a HUGELY STRONG 'bias' to A BEGINNING.

This BELIEF, which derived from, and through, religious texts but, sadly now, in the days of when this is being written, has continued on from, and through, scientific texts.

It NEVER ceases to AMUSE 'me' when SEEING 'you', adult human beings, BELIEVING (in) thee EXACT SAME thing YET are fighting, bickering, or arguing with the "other" as though "they" are WRONG and "we" are RIGHT.

It does NOT matter if 'you' are BELIEVING (in) A BEGINNING, of Everything, exists BUT are BICKERING over who and/or what created or caused this Everything, or whether 'you' are BELIEVING (in) God existing BUT bickering over one's OWN "version" is the RIGHT one.

The ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY, RIDICULOUSNESS, AND ABSURDITY of this NEVER stops being AMUSING.

ESPECIALLY in light of what thee ACTUAL One Truth IS, EXACTLY.

I don't think it a stretch to extend the concept of Absolute Nothing from mere Nothing because technically all forms of 'nothings' relative or absolute, are literally identical by OUR perspective. When someone presumes unicorns' as non-existing, they mean it is not in OUR world, not that it as a concept would be absurd. Narwals have spiral horns, horses are the basis for this creature, ...so unicorns are realistically possible and thus cannot be ruled out in all possible worlds. This is a 'relative nothing' because it COULD exist still in another world but we cannot determine it.

Even the religious person's God and their particular (special) history assigned to it, though you and I would agree is 'false', fits into the class 'relative nothing' because it is made up through the human minds. Our minds are real, even if one is delusionally seeing things. BECAUSE I am trying to argue from an UNBIASED position that doesn't rule out the strangest of people's beliefs about what might be, we need a PLACE or SUBCLASS to contain all that is 'empty' or devoid of meaning or reality that if understood fits under the same banner of Totality, would NOT be tossed out prematurely. This is why I opted for "Totality" to be defined as being absolutely containing of all, including absolutely nothing. That way, when we deem something irrational or false, that it doesn't bias these to at be in the COMPLEMENT of our idea of 'true' but still within Totality.

Totality is the only concept we can consider 'Absolutely One' in the set of absolutes I gave that is complete and exhaustive of what is possible to all universes (or non-existing ones). Then the question about absolute nothing versus absolutely everything can be addressed.

I argue reality from the Absolute Nothing in the same way Set theory uses the 'empty set'. All 'nothings' (IN FACT) are identical but our judgement of what is or is not is SPECIFICALLY 'nothing' through science proper or one's capacity to reason from what we know, MAY BE WRONG because we cannot escape THIS universe to prove so. To me, assuming Absolutely Everything should be easier for most to identify as also the Absolute One, as Totality is, given you can intellectually interpret a continuum of divisions of this one. So then the only remaining concept is the Absolute Nothing. But if you agree to Totality as being Absolutely One, and Absolutely Everything, it has to also have Absolute Nothing because,

(Absolute Nothing) x (Absolute Infinity) = Absolute One [each and all of these as Totality by this form(ula)].

While this is confusing if we think of something locally (relatively), it isn't with respect to the extremes. This HAS to be the case whether I get agreement on this or not, because Totality is NOT some 'god'. Even admitting of ONE 'special' thing, or SET of 'special things' (like the '42' things from "The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Universe" mockingly suggested. [See that link's Wikipedia entry, , under the subsection, "42, or The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything" for a bit more on this if you haven't read it.]

Given you are NOT religious, as I, then interpret this to mean that reality can come from NO SOURCE, of which I just label it as "Absolutely Nothing". I choose to use the term to be inclusive though of those who do NOT think of this as the case, like one who defines their 'god' as having this property (at maximum minus the particular history as it relates to humans). Because science is a 'politic', meaning that it exists as a collective of people who vote on what they 'observe' and never can you find ALL people to agree to the same interpretations, say for instance, to define Pluto as a 'planet' or not, I need a way to define the most universal concepts we agree to in principle to all to make a connection of logic and science into ONE shared system.

The 'laws of science' are a subset of 'universal laws', which are in turn at minimal, a subset of Absolute 'law' (or inclusively as 'lawless' when Absolute Nothing is considered). Scientists would NOT look at my theory, not even a glance, without it being put through a set of 'censors' (the review personel) who define what IS and IS NOT prerequisite to 'observations' and to the conventions expected of the institutes. [I don't get why anyone would NOT recognize the 'politics' given even this much as accepted is true?]

You don't have to believe that there are 'objects' outside of your solipsistic perspective of the world because these have to be true of ALL things, including whatever you are perceiving is 'true' for yourself. Thus you MAY think of different philosophical approaches but when discussing absolutely universal things, it all comes down to the same thing. I didn't think that I'd have to learn each person's perspective view here any more than I should require having to learn each and every religion in order to explain something from each BIASED view because I'm being most universally inclusive. If one argues against it, fine. But then they are just implying and imposing other philosophical dialect as relevant to this and/or are wanting to debate terms. Some tend to just recycle the same crap over and over in a way that I can't tell if they are just toying with me or being serious. [Age here has been doing that and why I cannot continue to appeal to her posts.]

I know this is my onus to prove and certainly am not an expert at social appeal in my writing. So I am sure that I am as much at fault here. But I'm burning out on this given, like I said, I cannot get this initialized. The amount of depth that I'd have to go into would take hundreds of years at this rate. And if that has to be the case, then I have to determine whether I should bother. I cannot do this alone any more than all of the world has built up knowledge of millions to get where we are today. And I cannot get past this essential part. I am sure that even if I don't, somebodies probably will at some future time if the politics are able to be removed. Maybe I'm in the wrong time and place for this? So be it. I just need to get further than this to even be able to properly present my theory even in an outline before I die. [And I don't think I have more than 10 years at tops given my health.]

I don't know what else to say. I asked some to just postulate it (a pretense) for the sake of at least seeing how it MIGHT lead to something more and that gets shot down too. So I'm discouraged here.

[Atla]

See, IF, and when, 'you', adult human beings START DOING what I SUGGEST, then the VERY OPPOSITE of what you CLAIM here is what WILL HAPPEN and OCCUR. That is; Unity, or better still, and better worded, REUNIFICATION WILL BEGIN.

Unless you're wrong about the universe, and there really is no unified mind or whatever unified something you're thinking of. That's probably one of the oldest delusions in the book, stop making baseless assumptions.