Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 3:40 am
This does NOT, and I will repeat, DOES NOT 'show' ANY such thing. And, this is just PURE ILLUSION to think or believe that 'that' is SHOWN by 'thought alone' .... 'pure reasoning'. You are just SEEING 'that' what is NOT THERE.
IF you REALLY want to 'show' EXACTLY HOW, supposedly, 'Something CAN come from Absolutely Nothing', then just SHOW, logically and/or empirically, just how Absolutely ANY thing CAN come from Absolutely Nothing.
What you have ACTUALLY DONE is just TWIST and DISTORT words in a way, which makes you think or believe "shows" what it is that you ALREADY BELIEVE is true.
Logic is itself inferred from experience or it would have no use.
Is there ANY thing that is inferred NOT from 'experience'?
If no, then what you wrote here is just plain obvious.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
Thus it is 'empirically' determined THAT logic exists as a reality, not some artificial construct to us.
This has NO bearing on what I have pointed out here.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
From the perspective of Totality, logical generalizations are a subset of patterned worlds. That is, they begin with the nature of patterns as existing where they do, and any 'logic' is then itself an induced 'pattern' about patterns itself.
But what 'you' class as being 'logic' or 'logical' is NOT necessarily what "another" would class as being 'logic' or 'logical'.
Also, what you wrote has NO bearing on what I pointed out here.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
The 'mechanisms' of nature (physics) are identical to some universal patterns that define some general
logic about space, time, matter, and energy.
'Space', 'time', 'matter', and 'energy' are just words, which 'you', human beings, have made up and created.
There is NO 'universal pattern' that 'defines some general
logic about these words'. It is 'you', human beings, who put 'definitions' to these words.
Also, again, what you wrote here has NO bearing on what I pointed out in this thread.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
So the Nature of our particular universe itself
What do 'you' mean by; "our particular universe itself"?
If the word 'our' refers to 'you', human beings, then does the word 'our' here infer a sense of ownership of the universe, itself?
Why did you use the 'particular' word here for? Are you suggesting, implying, or inferring that there is or could be some other universe?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
has to have some coinciding set of patterns that can are uniform and what defines the 'laws of physics'.
ALL words and ALL of their definitions are defined by 'you', human beings. The 'laws of physics' are just three words that, again, are defined by 'you', human beings. NOTHING ELSE defines the 'laws of physics'.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
But whether people CAN determine the "reasoning of Nature", we can be sure that there IS a 'reason'.
I DID show how you can find meaning to Totality if you begin from literally nothing.
I can find meaning to, the word, 'Totality' by just looking a dictionary. I can also find meaning to, the word, 'Totality' by looking for 'meaning' and providing 'meaning' all by "my" 'self'.
Also, you did NOT show 'me' how I can find meaning to 'Totality' if I begin from literally nothing. Obviously you showed 'me' how 'you' have imagined you have found, so called, "meaning" to the word 'Totality' by 'you' supposedly beginning from, literally, 'nothing'. But what is just as OBVIOUS is this is what you BELIEVE is true ALREADY. Therefore, you are NOT open to ANY thing else.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
I don't believe in Gods and so as an athiest, I reason that any reality has to be founded on 'absolutely nothing' or 'absolutely everything AND nothing'.
AND, this is what I have been POINTING OUT all along in this thread. That is; you ALREADY have a set of BELIEFS, which will NOT allow you to SEE ANY thing other than that BELIEF.
By the way, do ALL, so called, "atheists", so call, "reason" that any reality has to be founded on 'absolutely nothing' or 'absolutely everything AND nothing'? Also, are, so called, "theists" allowed to reason that any reality has to be founded on 'absolutely nothing' or 'absolutely everything AND nothing', as well? Or are they not allowed to?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
Both extremes point to 'nothing' as existing regardless.
BUT BOTH, so called, "extremes" do NOT point to 'nothing' as existing, in the sense of an 'origin', regardless.
I have ALREADY EXPLAINED HOW 'nothing' or 'absolutely nothing', in places, ALREADY exists and HAS TO exist.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
The only other
set of possibilities are "special" finite
atomic elements and laws that together describe only PARTICULAR worlds.
BUT WHY look to or for "other possibilities" when thee One and ONLY possibility is HERE for ALL of 'us' to LOOK AT, SEE, and UNDERSTAND?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
This CAN be the case in our world but if so, it begs why one particular SELECT SET (ie, "special set") would be the ONLY reality regarding Totality. There has to be more than this Universe or we require asking why we are so 'special'.
What does the word 'Universe' actually mean, to you?
Define the difference in definition between the word 'Universe' and 'Totality', to you.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
Now religions are just inferences by people's emotive interpretation of something assumed 'special' to our reality based precisely on the belief that Absolutely Anything could not occur due to Absolutely Nothing.
And all of what you are saying here is based mainly on your ill-gotten and wrong assumptions and beliefs about 'religion', itself, and your ill-gotten and wrong assumption and belief that there was Absolutely Nothing before Absolutely Anything.
Because of your former assumptions and beliefs you have concluded wrongly some 'thing', but because you feel it "helps" you in your opposition of your former assumptions and beliefs you are therefore going to STICK to 'it' and HOLD on to 'it' for as long as you can.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
Thus, they give a finite SPECIAL name to Totality based on what they figured is 'ideally' FAIR, that has a 'special' reason for our particular existence rather some other. This 'fairness' to them is where the popular foundation of today's major religions assign a 'special VALUE' of "goodness" to Totality. And "God" is this meaning AT LEAST in common to those interpreting our Universe as Absolutely Unique.
And instead of you just providing the ACTUAL 'PROOF', which this thread title CLAIMS, you prefer to LOOK AT and SPEAK about "others" and just how WRONG "they" ARE.
I certainly do NOT care what "others" think or believe here. Remember it is 'you', "scott mayers", who wrote this thread title, and so whether or not you can back up this CLAIM or not is what is of REAL importance here, now.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
I expanded on the point of 'special' here in the way some might assume the 'logic' of some particular game with rules represent a unique set of rules and unique LIMITED outcomes. These are the basic reasons that I first recognized that I have to broaden the class of all things to Totality as the label that encompasses ALL 'special' subset possibilities or many worlds, to which would permit CLOSURE when collectively defining Totality WITHOUT "SPECIAL" status assumed. Note how you do not like 'assuming'?
Yes it is and was, literally, 'noted', by 'me', ESPECIALLY considering it was 'me' who INFORMED 'you.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
To NOT assume anything is identical to presuming nothing 'special' as some
prior root of any existence.
This is about one of the MOST absurd AND illogical things that I have ever heard. But considering the fact that you are 'trying' absolutely ANY thing to back up and support your very strongly held onto BELIEFS, then what you wrote here is perfectly understandable, by me.
LOOK, to me, 'to NOT assume ANY thing' is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like 'to presume ANY thing'. They are so far apart from being "identical" that they are the exact 'opposite'.
'To NOT assume ANY thing' is IDENTICAL 'to NOT assume ANY thing'. Whereas, 'to presume nothing 'special' as some prior root of any existence' is IDENTICAL to 'presuming' some thing, which is just 'assuming' some thing prior to some thing else occurring.
'To NOT assume' is the EXACT OPPOSITE of 'to presume or to assume'.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
This also works if you assume absolutely nothing FALSE to Absolutely Anything.
But this, AGAIN, is ASSUMING, which OBVIOUSLY is the EXACT OPPOSITE of NOT ASSUMING.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
So what has to be CERTAIN is that
at least Absolutely Nothing exists.
I have ALREADY AGREED that 'Absolutely Nothing' exists, in the way that I have ALREADY DESCRIBED it does. As I keep INFORMING you, 'Absolutely Nothing', at places, HAS TO EXIST.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
Ignore the term, 'origin', as this only keeps reminding you or others that TIME itself has meaning for Absolutely Nothing.
But the term 'origin' has NEVER reminded me that TIME itself has meaning for Absolutely Nothing.
If you want to be LISTENED TO and HEARD, then 'you' REALLY need to STOP ASSUMING what you think or believe "others" are thinking.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
If time is
apriori assumed, then it assures that this concept, whatever it could mean, would
contain Absolutely Nothing and why you cannot interpret this as being able to exist in absence of Absolutely Something.
The reason I do NOT like to 'assume' ANY thing is because I ALREADY can SEE and KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS.
The ACTUAL reason I do interpret Absolute Nothing to exist in the absence of Absolutely Something (other than Absolutely Nothing) is because this is just NOT a logical NOR empirical possibility, let alone a logical or empirical actuality.
Look, I have ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY your ASSUMPTION and BELIEF is NOT even possible, let alone
what IS. So, if you want to challenge or question me about that, then please feel free to, but please refrain from 'trying to' tell 'me' why I can NOT see what 'it' is that you want me to SEE and UNDERSTAND.
I ALREADY KNOW EXACTLY WHY what you are saying and claiming here is False, Wrong, and Incorrect. Either accept this or not. But, again, PLEASE STOP from coming up with these absolutely wild and absurd GUESSES and ASSUMPTIONS of yours here.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
The point here is that Totality HAS to have some genetic foundation, of which 'origin' or 'genesis' are not applicable in meaning except as a type of
ultimate dependency in absolutely nothing, not ANYTHING nor EVERYTHING.
The ORIGIN of Totality is NOW. Always has been and always will be. In other words, the ORIGIN of Totality is always NOW. That is, ALWAYS IS.
Once you discover or learn and understand just HOW thee One and ONLY Universe is infinite AND eternal, then you will understand HOW and WHY the ORIGIN of the Universe is ALWAYS, NOW. The ORIGIN can ONLY ALWAYS be NOW.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
Totality, from our perspective inside it, then is defaulted as an Absolute Something to us only because we are 'products' of
something and cannot deny our own place in it. However, we cannot impose upon what Totality might be by demanding OURS has to be specially infinite nor finite because 'finite' concepts also beg boundaries exist.
WHY do you continue to bring up this 'special' word?
This One and ONLY Universe is, literally, 'special'. As It is the One and ONLY 'unique' One.
That is all that needs to be pointed out and said here regarding this FACT.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
[Note that in an infinite sea of things, there is ALWAYS something 'finite' within it,
What you are essentially saying here is; There is ALWAYS something 'finite' within 'that' what IS (ALWAYS) 'infinite'.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
thus begging that something
finite is foundational.
The ONLY thing this begs is that ALL of the 'finite' 'things', within the 'infinite' 'thing, sea, or Universe' are foundational 'finite'. Which stands to reason that these 'things' are, by definition, 'finite'. But obviously we still have the 'infinite sea', of the 'finite things', which, by your OWN definition, IS 'infinite. Thus begging that this 'thing's'
infiniteness IS 'foundational'.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
This would beg that there is no such thing as "nothing" with MORE bias to ASSUMING 'space' along with 'time' as
apriori.
There is a whole LOT of ASSUMING going on here.
As I continually say and state; I much prefer to just LOOK AT
what ACTUALLY IS, instead. This way I can only gain a perspective of what the ACTUAL Truth IS.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
So ....
Age wrote:
LOOK, it is REALLY SIMPLE to SEE what is ACTUALLY going on here.
Your (0) 'Nothing exists absolutely', is ABSOLUTELY True. But this is just because the Universe, the way that It ACTUALLY ALWAYS IS, could NOT exist in any OTHER way. 'Nothing' DOES exist absolutely (or absolutely exists) BUT ONLY in 'places' BETWEEN physical things. This is just IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.
Your (1) 'But if 'Nothing exists absolutely' is 'true', then that is ONE thing. This is a fact', is ALSO ABSOLUTELY True. But this is just because 'nothing' (or no thing) is, literally, just SOME (or ONE) thing. Obviously, 'nothing' FITS under the label of something. The word 'some' is literally defined as ONE 'thing' or ANY number of 'things' up to but NOT including ALL 'things' in ANY group of 'things'. So, 'nothing', itself, FITS in PERFECTLY under the label of Everything AND with the group known as Something. Nothing, itself, is something.
Your (2) "Since (1) is a fact, then it too has to be added and we have (3) facts," and your (3)Since (2) is a fact, .... although is PARTLY true the part about "has to be added" is just NOT true AT ALL.
You ONLY 'add' them together because you think or believe that doing so would help back up and support your already held beliefs. But, sadly AND unfortunately for you, doing that does NOT back up NOR support your currently held BELIEFS.
And Absolutely Nothing you have said, so far, could conclude that Absolutely Nothing exists as an 'origin'. To think or believe so is just a COMPLETE ILLUSION.
WHY 'you' want to BELIEVE, and INSIST, that IF there was an 'origin', then it would be Absolutely Nothing, is of your OWN making. But just because you BELIEVE this, this DOES NOT make 'it' Absolutely True.
What you have 'tried to' argue here is just a FALLACY. Your "reasoning" is faulty AND you have made 'wrong moves' in the attempt of making a sound and valid argument. As I have SHOWN and PROVEN your "argument" is invalid AND unsound.
...you appear to treat 'nothing' as NOT ABLE to be 'absolute' in principle.
I have continually STATED that; 'Absolutely Nothing', in places, ACTUALLY and ABSOLUTELY exists.
So, what you CLAIM here is just ABSURDNESS to the EXTREME.
You appear to have NOT heard NOR listened to a word that I have been saying and writing.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
But if this is true in principle, then there is at least ONE thing, namely 'nothing', that CANNOT be real and thus NEGATE that it is also impossible that Absolutely Everything is true. That is, you are left to 'assume' that something SPECIAL is true of Totality.
You are SO FAR OFF TRACK that this is BEYOND ridiculous now.
Instead of just LOOK AT and READING the ACTUAL WORDS that I write, you read what I write, with an underlying ASSUMPTION that I look at and see things like some people do. Will you please STOP doing this?
If you continue to keep doing this, then you NEVER SEE what I am ACTUALLY SAYING and ACTUALLY MEANING.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
You'd also have to recognize that this 'special' concept would not be able to be Absolutely ONE because it would be no different than trying to describe all things using only one thing without 'nothing' nor any OTHER finite concept.
Are you YET AWARE that EACH TIME you have that you have told me here that I would "have to see things in some particular way or another" that you have been ABSOLUTELY WRONG?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
This means you DENY any of these Absolutes (of Nothing, Something, and Everything) as having meaning and thus, Totality, itself could not be permitted to be 'defined' at all. This places Totality into the class of 'special' beings that is of SOME thing
greater than one and less than infinity (or the 'continuity' of infinity inifinites). That is, you assume a FINITE ETERNAL BEING to reality as a whole. This would require a SPECIAL status, like a 'god' or 'gods', or a 'force' that always existed [StarWars-like] or some SPECIAL SET of things that is itself IRREDUCIBLLY COMPLEX!
And YET here 'you' ARE CLAIMING that 'you' do not just have PROOF that Everything could come from Absolutely Nothing but that Everything ACTUALLY DID come from Absolutely Nothing.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
This is why I was motivated to argue here. The process I used is indifferent to how Set theories define mathematical and logical thought based on only the 'empty set'. It defines 'order' as just the way various kinds of complex sets can be
derived (ie, 'originating' or 'being caused by') the empty set in abstraction.
No matter how or which way you arrived at the conclusion Absolutely Everything came from Absolutely Nothing, you are STILL STUCK in the predicament of EXPLAIN just HOW this could even be a POSSIBILITY, let alone IS an ACTUALITY.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
The process I used above presumes that even the abstractions themselves are
real because they just represent the collection of ALL PARTICULAR possibilities that have a common form.
AND, no matter how times I inform 'you', human beings, that if you continue to ASSUME things, (which obviously includes presuming things), then this will prevent you from SEEING thee ACTUAL Truth of things, 'you' STILL persist with this assuming/presuming "behavior", as though 'you' ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth is.
LOOK "scott mayers" you can keep informing me that you have used 'presumptions' to arrive at what you have, but the only thing you are really SHOWING here is that what I have been saying, and informing, is ACTUALLY thee Truth of things.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
This is the nature of listing things as 'facts' under the PRETENSE of Absolutely Nothing as postulated in the first fact I labeled, "(0) Absolutely Nothing exists".
The words REFER to the reality and the pattern I used by recognizing each 'law' as having a count of 'one fact', is recognizing the abstraction, form, or absolutes as real. Thus my logic (the process, not the particular argument) is sound of reasoning itself, AND valid.
OBVIOUSLY, if this is what you BELIEVE is true, then this is "what 'it' will be".
However, to PROVE that what you have said above is NOT sound and/or invalid is that NOT EVERY one is agreeing with you and accepting of this. Because OBVIOUSLY if you had a sound AND valid argument to present, then that is IRREFUTABLE. Which is what it might APPEAR to be to you, but remember you are COMPLETELY BIASED because of your ALREADY PREEXISTING HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.
Remember that; what 'you' class as being 'logic' or 'logical' is NOT necessarily what "another" would class as being 'logic' or 'logical'. Your "logic" is NOT necessarily 'logic' nor 'logical' at all.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
What you disagree with is to the PARTICULAR argument's use of (0) as a fact.
Are you trying to look foolish here now?
I am not sure if you have 'interpreted' my writings correctly yet. Your "interpretation" of my writings here could NOT be any further from thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
This is what I ACTUALLY WROTE:
Your (0) 'Nothing exists absolutely', is ABSOLUTELY True.
Now, please explain to 'us' readers how you arrived at your conclusion here that:
What I disagree with is to the PARTICULAR argument's use of (0) as a fact?
Will you please EXPLAIN at just HOW you arrived at this ASSUMPTION from thee ACTUAL WORDS that I used?
I wrote that YOUR PARTICULAR argument's use of (0) as a fact, 'is ABSOLUTELY True.' So, HOW come you wrote that "I DISAGREE" with this?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
THIS then just means that YOU, and not I,
believe that
Absolutely Nothing is itself NOT POSSIBLE with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY!
But I do NOT 'believe' this, as I have CONTINUALLY STATED. I KNOW this is True.
I KNOW, with ABSOLUTELY CERTAINTY, that 'Absolutely Nothing' all by itself, is NOT POSSIBLE. The reason for this I have ALREADY EXPLAINED. But I am more than willing to EXPLAIN again, if ANY one feels this is NECESSARY.
Please ANY one feel FREE to ask me to CLARIFY AGAIN or to CHALLENGE me on this.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
So I can reverse the question back to you to ask HOW you inferred this without some SPECIAL BIAS?
How I did this was by just LOOKING without ANY preconceived idea/s of ANY thing. I just LOOKED AT what IS, and THEN used previous experiences/observations to SEE if
what IS (now being observed) is ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct.
Does this CLARIFY FULLY for you? If no, then feel FREE to ask as many more CLARIFYING QUESTIONS as you feel necessary to gain a FULLY UNDERSTANDING here.
Also, REMEMBER, that I do NOT BELIEVE, do NOT ASSUME, and do NOT think NOR would say what you are SAYING I would here.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
Age wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:46 pm
PROOF complete for my intent so far.
NOT at all. The only thing PROVEN here is that you will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to 'try to' back up and support your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.
And, I will remind you that what you are 'intending' and 'trying' to do and achieve here will NEVER WORK.
Thus, your last sentence here asserts just the nature of your bias.
So, you WANT TO and DID make another CLAIM here, about 'me'. Now will you back up and support this CLAIM by presenting what 'it' is, which you CLAIM is "my bias"?
LOOK, if some one has the PROVE of some 'thing', then there is NO "bias". That 'thing' is just FACT, which is OBVIOUSLY indisputable AND irrefutable. Now, of course, this will lay in doubt until PROVEN True. But you can NOT successfully CLAIM that 'it' is "my bias" UNTIL 'you' have PROVEN 'it' to be False, or Wrong, or Incorrect. And BEFORE you could that you have to first provide the ACTUAL EXAMPLE of what 'it' is that you CLAIM is "my bias".
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
You also CLOSE the door to allow anything that I could possibly say as PERMANENTLY UNABLE to prove to you anything different regardless of how much I could argue with you, correct?
No.
I have given you plenty of opportunities to express just HOW it could be a possibility that Absolutely Everything COULD come from Absolutely Nothing. You have provided Absolutely Nothing so far.
I have asked you CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which you have REFUSED to answer. I have also challenged you on some of what you have proposed/claimed is true, you failed to respond.
Now, if you WANT TO, you can QUESTION me for CLARITY and/or CHALLENGE me on my CLAIMS. Also, please feel FREE to.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:46 pmAnd it works also for the religious if they wouldn't taboo questioning God as subject to be a subset of Totality as I defined it. [But I'm guessing it won't be welcome in general politically because it is "nihilistic" logically and scares people for what it implies as though it steals away all civilized functioning.]
Besides being scientifically, or 'empirically', IMPOSSIBLE for ANY thing to come from NO thing it is ALSO, 'logically' IMPOSSIBLE.
You may as well be religious, then.
If you say so, then okay.
This will SURELY back up AND support your CURRENTLY HELD ONTO BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS as being now ABSOLUTELY True and CORRECT.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
Science is not the arbitor of
absolute truth because it is only dependent upon the observers' perspective and is 'special' to the biases of human activity.
By definition, 'science', does NOT involve itself with Truth AT ALL. As I have EXPLAINED WHY previously.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
Induction without perfect consistent agreement of 100% is NEVER able to be MORE valid nor sound to the
mechanisms of physics themselves, let alone to all possible worlds. So you are being double biased if you assume that science can ever POSSIBLY PROVE that anything PARTICULAR is
IMPOSSIBLE with respect to the whole.
And 'you' would be VERY FOOLISH to continue thinking and/or saying that I am or would be ASSUMING some thing here, without ACTUAL PROOF. ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING what I KEEP INFORMING you of.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
It is 'tentative' and even in its methods assert that they can only speak on things that CAN in principle be 'falsifiable'.
As I have said; 'science' does NOT involve itself with thee ACTUAL Truth of things. 'Science', by definition, on works on and with ASSUMPTIONS or GUESSES, 'theories', of things. And as we ALL are most likely aware of in a philosophy forum, what are just ASSUMPTIONS, GUESSES, or THEORIES could OBVIOUSLY be FALSE, WRONG, and/or INCORRECT, and thus FALSIFIABLE.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
You are implying that you can DEDUCE that Absolutely Nothing is impossible with absolute closure (certainty) when science only INDUCES from patterns and measures things which CAN be 'falsifiable'.
This would have been EXACTLY RIGHT, if you had remembered to add the proviso that Absolutely Nothing is NOT just possible but is, in fact, a NECESSITY, in places.
If you wrote that, then you would be 100% Right.
In case you have FORGOTTEN I say that Absolutely Nothing, as in NOTHING ELSE, is impossible with absolute closure (certainty) as this can be and has ALREADY been PROVEN to be ABSOLUTELY True, Right, AND Correct.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
You are left to argue something
logical here that is NOT dependent upon science.
Okay if you say so. Arguing logically, soundly AND validly here is completely possible.
Forming arguments, however, although NOT dependent upon science does NOT necessarily stop science from LOOKING DEEPER nor FURTHER.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
You need an argument to demonstrate how it is impossible for Totality itself to be meaningful as defined or that it is somehow 'special' without resorting to anything religious or based upon some other bias.
ALREADY DONE. You appear to just be MISSING it, due to your OWN biases. But you do now appear to be grasping a much BETTER and CLEARER understanding of things here.
If you would like me to EXPLAIN AGAIN, then please let me know.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
Are you at least flexible to change your mind or are you sticking to your assertion that I am not POSSIBLY ABLE to prove anything?
LOL This is one VERY WILD ASSUMPTION here.
When have I EVER suggested that 'you' were not POSSIBLY ABLE to prove ANY thing?
Also, there is NO such thing as "your mind". So, it is NOT possible to 'change'.
Now, am I OPEN to VIEW and SEE things DIFFERENTLY? SURE, when 'you' or ANY one else SHOWS me DIFFERENTLY.
I have ALREADY implied that you could SHOW me that Absolutely Everything came from Absolutely Nothing by continually asking you CLARIFYING QUESTIONS regarding this. But if and when you do NOT provide me with any more CLARITY, then I do NOT necessarily SEE things DIFFERENTLY.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
If so, we have to stop arguing. I heard you, and I'll have to accept your difference knowing that you'd NEVER possibly agree regardless of my efforts.
That is one way to just GIVE UP. BLAME the "other" for 'you' wanting to 'walk away'.
Have you EVER considered querying me for CLARIFICATION about what I say, and argue for, and then SEE if you COULD possibly 'agree' with 'me'?
Or, is this just out of the question?
SEE, I do NOT really try to argue for a position if the "other" is NOT showing ANY signs of being curious or wanting to SEE things DIFFERENTLY from their CURRENTLY HELD POSITION.
To me, I have given you PLENTY of opportunities to PROVE your CLAIM that you HAVE PROOF that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin. Are you at all OPEN to the ACTUAL FACT that you could be WRONG?