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

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 2:09 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:19 pm
Ha! I use it as a mere BASE to my scientific theory to make it into a real THEOREM, a logical argument that step by step can explain reality up to the chemistry. That is, I can CLOSE physics as a logical argument that literally describes what matter, space, and energy is.
I would LOVE to SEE this step by step 'logical argument' that, supposedly, explains 'reality', itself, up to the chemistry.

I would therefore ALSO LOVE to SEE you CLOSE physics in and with a 'logical argument' that literally describes what 'matter', 'space', and 'energy' is. ...
I am trying to represent the foundation of my argument here. It requires closing what we know from science with a proposed logic or mechanism OF reality from the basis of Totality as being rooted in Absolutely Nothing. If you cannot understand this foundation, it makes it difficult for you to be able to transfer the eventual logic itself as being real, not merely some artifact of communication.
To me,

'Matter' is just physical things.
'Space' is just the distance between physical things.
'Energy' is just what is caused from the friction when physical things interact with each other.

'Space' is, literally, Absolutely Nothing, which is what allows complete and utter freedom for physical things to always be in constant motion, or change.

At the most fundamental level the Universe is just made up of 'matter' [Something] AND 'space' [Nothing]. End of story.

The two matter AND space coexist always-forever. This is the ONLY way the Universe can exist, ALWAYS in the HERE and NOW. Thee One and ONLY Universe just being infinite AND eternal and ALWAYS in the state of constant-change. This constant state of change with physical things "bumping" into each other and causing friction, because of the empty space between them is HOW and WHY 'energy' will ALWAYS be.
I understood this by default for you as well as most (if not all) others. But this only BEGS that time, matter, distance, and dimensions exist. They don't help describe these things but are relatively 'undefined' concepts (logically speaking). We just use our experience, a further assumption, when speaking about science. I am speaking the metaphysical source of ALL. I'm also doing it in a way that permits people's beliefs but in a way that asks what the ultimate source could come from.

You partly agree when recognizing 'nothing' as at least valid as 'spacial points'. I am asking the deeper question, what are the roots of all reality independent of the postulated 'special' factors, like space-time with respect to NO prior being to Totality, whether that be of causation or the STATIC minimal factors involved apriori to dynamic reality.
And this is what is REALLY happening AND occurring. What is 'reality', however, is some thing different, which is far more on the psychological construct of 'things'.

Now what is YOUR, so called, "scientific theory", "THEOREM", and 'logical argument' that, supposedly, CLOSES physics by literally describing what 'matter', 'space', and 'energy' is?
Like I said, THIS is the beginning of the proof. It requires a foundation in Absolute Nothing as a 'state' of the whole (Totality). But I'll wait for your response on what I wrote from the prior posts as this concern of yours is interdependent upon it. [This reduces confusion.]
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 12:19 am I only care about your view MINUS speaking for Kant because I find some of your interpretations of his off to mine on merely what you quote and how you defy the general meaning behind 'transcendental idealism' and the other terms about philosophical classifications.
You should not leverage on me alone MINUS Kant and other philosophers.
Without standing on those giant shoulders of the past, I am merely and comparatively a 'gnat' in philosophy.

Instead of reinventing the wheel I would prefer to quote those philosophical geniuses plus some commentaries of my own.
I believe referencing past philosophers is very critical for any philosophical discussions. Read the reputable philosophical papers and you will find at least >20 references.
You are very confused about the interpretation of Kant and have your own view independent of either the 'realist' or the 'antirealist' philosophically.
If you have not studied Kant thoroughly, any judgment of yours related to Kant is not credible.
Then stop raising him as an 'authority' over YOUR opinion and capacity to argue INDEPENDENT of his words. I've got his "Critique of Pure Reason" and you may give me a reason to finally read it. But it is not going to be relevant to argue second-hand interpretations when I'm not discussing "philosophers literature" here.
If you are confident to the validity and soundness of what you interpret as sensible through him, you can reargue it using ONLY your own words.
I have argued in my own words, but as I mentioned above, MY OPINION is very limited.

I was in the same position as yourself now.
Long ago I was bombarded with references to Kant all the time and I tried to respond with my personal views which made no headway [on hindsight I was foolish].
Btw, in many polls, Kant is one of the greatest philosopher of all times, and thus has credibility.
So to me more credible in my views on Kant, I began to read Kant's CPR and his other works plus the incentive is Kant's central views are parallel to the philosophy of Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies.

I suggest you read up Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason".
I recommend you get a Kant dictionary as an aid , e.g. Cargill's.

Not essential, but to get a better grasp, I'd crossed reference to 7 English translations of Kant's CPR.

Before you start reading Kant, note his comments and expectations,
In this enquiry I have made Completeness my chief aim, and I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied.
...
If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.

In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light; but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the idea of the Whole.
CPR -2nd Preface
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
Age wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 3:40 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:46 pm
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?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age »

"scott mayers", If you just wrote out a VERY SIMPLE two, three, four, or more premise and conclusion argument, then I could and would SHOW you WHERE, HOW, and WHY it is NOT sound NOR valid, or just plain wrong.

And then, if you showed signs of being interest, could SHOW you what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 12:30 am
Age wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 1:50 pm
I am not arguing with your pretentious superiority and 'non-human' existence.
Okay. If that is what you SEE and BELIEVE, then so be it.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm You are just acting with your 'special' status as being more absurd than the topic at hand.
Between 'you' and 'I' 'you' are the ONLY one who keeps bring this 'special' word into the discussion.

The reason WHY you do this is OBVIOUS.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm If you want to discuss your religious beliefs, lets do it elsewhere.
LOL What 'religious belief' are you even talking about and referring to here?

Your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS have led you so far astray and continue to lead you even further astray.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm I've defined "Totality" in a way that should be able to INCLUDE your 'god' and thus question any source of universal foundations as metaphysically every possible thing's 'existence'.
So, why do you SEE that I have said ANY thing DIFFERENT here?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:08 am
Age wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 2:09 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:19 pm
Ha! I use it as a mere BASE to my scientific theory to make it into a real THEOREM, a logical argument that step by step can explain reality up to the chemistry. That is, I can CLOSE physics as a logical argument that literally describes what matter, space, and energy is.
I would LOVE to SEE this step by step 'logical argument' that, supposedly, explains 'reality', itself, up to the chemistry.

I would therefore ALSO LOVE to SEE you CLOSE physics in and with a 'logical argument' that literally describes what 'matter', 'space', and 'energy' is. ...
I am trying to represent the foundation of my argument here.
And you are NOT succeeding with ANY one. So, what is the ACTUAL problem or issue here?

Is it ALL of 'us', "others", or is it 'you'? Or, is it both 'you' and ALL of 'us'?
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:08 am It requires closing what we know from science with a proposed logic or mechanism OF reality from the basis of Totality as being rooted in Absolutely Nothing.
Show for 'you' to SHOW an argument that concludes that Absolutely Everything came from Absolutely Nothing, you want to propose that what 'you' know from science ALREADY and which is based on that Totality as being rooted in Absolutely Nothing, to begin with.

This sounds, EXACTLY, like; circular reasoning or a circular argument
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:08 am If you cannot understand this foundation,
I can VERY EASILY UNDERSTAND that this is the foundation for YOUR ARGUMENT. But what I have been trying to ascertain from you, from the outset of this thread, is what ACTUAL EVIDENCE and preferably what PROOF do you have that Absolutely Nothing for an origin of Absolutely Everything could even be just A POSSIBILITY, let alone AN ACTUALITY?

IF you EVER provide this EVIDENCE or PROOF, then we will, at least, have SOME 'thing' to LOOK AT, and then I can decide if I understand "this" foundation, of YOURS.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:08 am it makes it difficult for you to be able to transfer the eventual logic itself as being real, not merely some artifact of communication.
But what is known as CIRCULAR "logic" does NOT cut it with 'me'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:08 am
To me,

'Matter' is just physical things.
'Space' is just the distance between physical things.
'Energy' is just what is caused from the friction when physical things interact with each other.

'Space' is, literally, Absolutely Nothing, which is what allows complete and utter freedom for physical things to always be in constant motion, or change.

At the most fundamental level the Universe is just made up of 'matter' [Something] AND 'space' [Nothing]. End of story.

The two matter AND space coexist always-forever. This is the ONLY way the Universe can exist, ALWAYS in the HERE and NOW. Thee One and ONLY Universe just being infinite AND eternal and ALWAYS in the state of constant-change. This constant state of change with physical things "bumping" into each other and causing friction, because of the empty space between them is HOW and WHY 'energy' will ALWAYS be.
I understood this by default for you as well as most (if not all) others. But this only BEGS that time, matter, distance, and dimensions exist.
Well that CERTAINLY DOES NOT 'beg' these things, from YOUR perspective, at all. But this is ANOTHER MATTER.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:08 am They don't help describe these things but are relatively 'undefined' concepts (logically speaking).
If ANY concept has NOT YET been defined, then OF COURSE they are OBVIOUSLY relatively 'undefined' concepts. But to FIX this issue or SOLVE this problem, then all we NEED to do is just define them. VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, REALLY.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:08 am We just use our experience, a further assumption, when speaking about science.
But this is EXACTLY what 'you' do, and NOT what 'I' do. As I have ALREADY EXPLAINED and have ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY I DO NOT.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:08 am I am speaking the metaphysical source of ALL. I'm also doing it in a way that permits people's beliefs but in a way that asks what the ultimate source could come from.
But you are OBVIOUSLY and CERTAINLY NOT asking ANY such thing. Your thread title is PROVE of this. You CLAIM that you have PROOF what the 'ultimate source' could and DOES come from.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:08 am You partly agree when recognizing 'nothing' as at least valid as 'spacial points'.
What do you mean here by 'partly agree'?

I ACTUALLY FULLY agree with this. I was thinking that this would be FULLY KNOWN, by now. But this is FURTHER PROOF of why I should NEVER think or ASSUME ANY thing AT ALL.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:08 am I am asking the deeper question, what are the roots of all reality independent of the postulated 'special' factors, like space-time with respect to NO prior being to Totality, whether that be of causation or the STATIC minimal factors involved apriori to dynamic reality.
WHAT?

WHY ask such convoluted AND confusing questions? By the way, the OBVIOUS preexisting ASSUMPTIONS in such a question can be CLEARLY SEEN here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:08 am
And this is what is REALLY happening AND occurring. What is 'reality', however, is some thing different, which is far more on the psychological construct of 'things'.

Now what is YOUR, so called, "scientific theory", "THEOREM", and 'logical argument' that, supposedly, CLOSES physics by literally describing what 'matter', 'space', and 'energy' is?
Like I said, THIS is the beginning of the proof. It requires a foundation in Absolute Nothing as a 'state' of the whole (Totality). But I'll wait for your response on what I wrote from the prior posts as this concern of yours is interdependent upon it. [This reduces confusion.]
This could also be AN ESCAPE or DETRACTION if you now do NOT provide YOUR, so called, "scientific theory, "THEOREM", and "logical argument".

Are you YET AWARE that if YOUR theory/theorem/logical argument requires a FOUNDATION in Absolutely Nothing as a 'state' of the whole (Totality), then you could NOT soundly AND validly then conclude that Absolutely Nothing was the origin/'state' of Absolutely Everything?
Atla
Posts: 6674
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:27 am Since Nothing is assumed to be unable to exist absolutely, Absolute Nothing is identical to Absolute false (not true anywhere absolutely)
"nothing exists" is a proposition, "false" is a truth-value, how can you equate them? nothing is the lack of anything, including the lack of truth-values
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

Post by Scott Mayers »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 7:04 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 12:19 am I only care about your view MINUS speaking for Kant because I find some of your interpretations of his off to mine on merely what you quote and how you defy the general meaning behind 'transcendental idealism' and the other terms about philosophical classifications.
You should not leverage on me alone MINUS Kant and other philosophers.
Without standing on those giant shoulders of the past, I am merely and comparatively a 'gnat' in philosophy.

...
Noted. I am very very aware of the issues regarding those who feel that logic is a mere artificial tool that demands ONLY 'empirical' processes of reasoning. This is restricted to the vast majority of people in all times who believe that ONLY DIRECT witness to something from the senses ALONE are all that is considered 'real'. To me, it is a POLITIC to demand this because it ignores fundamentally that logic itself is LESS sound than those using it to argue for ANYTHING, including the things that people use their senses for.

I also HAVE a theory that is about demonstrating how reality DOES have a 'logic' (a patterned mechanism) that is NOT based on our personal bias of perspective. That is, where 'science' is a political convention that REQUIRES more than one person, and certainly AT LEAST one person, I am arguing for how Nature itself operates independent of opinions of people AND that SOME real 'mechanism' (a logic) that is defaulted to be understood as existing apriori. If not, then not even the institute of science is valid nor sound.

The debate here is thus about whether I am PERMITTED to argue about ultimate foundations in physics because it might upset those who can't fathom the possibility of Totality as founded on NOTHING versus SOMETHING. To me, the default to demanding that SOME being has to exist apriori versus NOTHING, is itself a 'religious' and political construct because it begs that it is either 'taboo' to suggest or mentally ill of one to propose.

Therefore, whether Kant (or other famed philosopher) has argued something that you (or others) think is completely exhaustively argued is irrelevant unless it is begging me to shut up when I CAN argue for a mechanism of Nature to 'cause' all from absolutely nothing. The error is NOT mine here. The error to me is how others are BIASED to favor the PRACTICAL considerations based upon assuming their own existence AS a part of the proof but ingore that this is indifferent to replacing some 'God' to one's own self....that it is 'taboo' to presume a mechanism of Nature apart from our own local perceptions in which we are not allowed to QUESTION any foundations more fundamental.

I noticed that many philosophers, like Kant, who argue against another philosopher's works are more often than not inappropriately dismissing or favoring another based on their OWN bias of MISINTERPRETATION of the other sources. When I read Plato's works, for instance, I became shocked of other's interpretations of 'absolutes' or 'forms' for how they misappropriate alternative interpretations than I think the philosopher meant. For instance, Platos absolutes were deemed absolute non-sense (pun intended) by many of the authors that come after him because of them re-interpreting Plato's works as the inspirational utility for poor thinking elsewhere. This is an 'associative' caricature like how a serial killer might have asserted they read, "Catcher in the Rye" as inspiration to one's actions. Does the fault of the original author exist for those who misinterpret their works? I say no. And thus, if I were to grant a hearing of someone who asserts their inspiration, while it may help to ask HOW they associated this, their 'inspirational interpretation' is NOT relevant to the associated authors of the works one grants credit to.

So, sorry if you disagree with me NOT accepting Kant as some prerequisite authority that you think I MUST read whom you think should dissolve my intent to continue arguing for something I argue independently. If I make some rational error that you think Kant already 'closed' the issue on, so be it. If your interpretation suffices to close the door on what possible argument I might present as pre-nullified by you, this ends my capacity to prove nor disprove anything to YOU. Nature to me has to have some ultimate 'logic' for consistent worlds in order for our own Universe to exist. Whether some will DECLARE that we can NEVER determine the mechanisms of ultimate Nature, to me, this is itself the paradoxical anti-logical assertion that says,

"This statement is the ONLY absolute certainty: There are NO absolute certainties."

This is how many 'scientists' think even where they have no apparent 'religion' they assert an association to. But it is a political expediant that merely TABOOS those who dare to go against those in power, not something that is literally a LAW in itself. It is a means to assure the perpetuity of some people's AUTHORITY by demanding it is a 'law' itself that we must continue to believe in them, count on them, and in practice, place our investments in their superiority forever unquestionably.

My argument here is based motivationally on the only assumption that there is a reason for all that exist that is dependent upon nothing being necessary. And it is hard to argue when the very means of expressing 'nothing' is biased to paradoxically crossed interpretation itself.

"Nothing causes Everything" thus can mean

-> There is no ultimate cause of anything.
-> That which causes everything is itself no (real) thing.
-> There is not one thing that leads or is necessary for anything or everything.

There are more I'm sure. I am just making the point that the term, "nothing" itself is itself hard for many to interpret as having meaning, let alone the issue of adding the qualifying term, "absolute" to it. I am arguing that there IS a way to demonstrate Nature as ABLE to manifest reality without a need for anything SPECIAL because the universal NON-SPECIAL reality of 'nothing' is most UNIVERSALLY included in EVERYTHING.

Totality doesn't even require having 'logic' at its inception any more than it requires any input. But given we are a subset OF patterns of non-things (abstractions), then 'logic' is just the recognized patterns that define 'consistent' worlds within a totality that itself doesn't require some pre-law status that demands it must be 'consistent' as a whole. That is, where Totality IS Absolutely Nothing, this is impossible to notice by our senses FROM being an Absolute Something by perspective. This is like demanding that someone blind must nevertheless still have functioning eyes to 'see' that he is blind. He can still infer meaning of this in context to the patterns he experiences from other senses. But extend this to Totality as something that LACKS even one 'sense' to observe if it were absolutely no thing. It is paradoxical perpetually only if one assumes that it has to BE 'something'. To it, though, it is NOT 'paradoxical' because it is identical to meaning it is ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING since it would imply that reality is just a 'manifestation' (a perspective) of abstract concepts themselves that are possible (pose-able, pro-pose-able, op-pose-able, anything that can be presented as an illusion of something real or not).

I don't need anyone to convince me that it may be impossible to 'prove' to other people with their confidence that Totality can derive from literally Absolutely Nothing, because Totality itself cannot 'prove' itself anymore real than it could prove itself unreal. But I can argue that for whatever is the ultimate 'truth' about reality, you can 'construct/reconstruct' it in a universally mechanical way that explains how something can be manifest 'real' from even that which is just as 'unreal' but NOT the reverse. That is, I cannot argue by BEGINNING with what is 'real' to prove that everything originates (or is 'founded') upon something that is 'not real' to us in our present context of having senses. You need sensation to be first derived before it can operate as a sensible foundation.

The only alternative is for you to POSTULATE it, or 'pretend' it is real for the sake of argument to witness HOW the apparently 'artificial' game you may assume I am creating can become constructive. Just think of the 'postulate' of "Absolutely Nothing" as identical to meaning the same as 'There is no such thing as a postulate." It is certainly a paradoxical assumption that is itself 'constructive' in that it perpetuates an eternally circularity of meaning. Then, we just require adapting a complete system of reasoning based on human-language-only 'logic' that you DO accept is 'validating' of what you DO accept as 'real'.
Postulate 1: There is no such thing as a 'postulate'.
Using say, Propositional Calculus, given this system is proven 'complete' by us humans, then IF we assume this as the only input premise to an argument, this still leads to the same kind of argument I presented earlier:
0 (1)Propostional Calculus exists.[Accepted theory]
1 (2)Postulate-1 real,& allowed by the rules by premise (1) for tautology.
[Assumption]
___________
0 (3)Premise (1) implies Premise (2) .......
[1,2 Conditional Proof]
This just shows that using Propositional logic, we can assume a meaning of an assumption that is defining itself AS itself, while potentially meaningless, as able to draw both a valid and SOUND conclusion because the assumption of Postulate-1's meaning draws a sound conclusion: That if the system of propositional calculus itself is 'sound', then if Premise (2) false, then so is the Propositional Calculus for validating the conclusion as able to be 'sound' based on the assumption (1) as a defaulted 'theorem'. [The '0' there indicates it is a theorem or theory trusted external to this particular argument and so BEGS itself 'true' by the same kind of 'tautology' I used in premise (2).]

I understand that you may not have the particular background on Propositional Calculus but should still at least intuitively understand this as meaning that "if the system of reasoning cannot prove its own existence, it does not mean that the system itself is incorrect because it is itself the 'foundation' of its own cause. If it is unsound to use a foundational logic that lacks proof of itself, then it is not 'sound' to draw ANY conclusions from it in ANY other situation where we DO think it is justified.

Absolutely Nothing is the foundational 'system' of Totality in the same way.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 8:11 am "scott mayers", If you just wrote out a VERY SIMPLE two, three, four, or more premise and conclusion argument, then I could and would SHOW you WHERE, HOW, and WHY it is NOT sound NOR valid, or just plain wrong.

And then, if you showed signs of being interest, could SHOW you what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.
I cannot argue with you. You DICTATE to me that you do not 'assume' all the while assuming you know what I am saying is CERTAINLY nonsense with closure. You've EXPLODED again in your responses and all it ASSURES me, not merely assumed, that you have no interest in 'listening' yourself. I have no reason to care about your opinion from here on in. You've defined me as having a 'belief', .....although 'assuming absolutely nothing' is impermissible to you BY MY DEFINTION.

I can't even waste my time further with you. I would have liked to respond to some of the above book you wrote but don't have any useful reason to be heckled when you could CHOOSE to leave for not liking anything I have to say. Why bother unless you LIKE TO HECKLE? That defines 'trolling' the speaker with behaviors meant only to derail my efforts in an abusive way. Please quit here given you have PROVEN to me that you've PROVEN to yourself that anything I have to say here is idiotic and insane to you.

I am formally asking you to STOP posting here in this thread. What I, a mere 'human being' of derision in your terms, will only continue to be disapproving for you regardless. I accept that I am UNABLE to prove ANYTHING satisfactorily to you IN PRINCIPLE. So we are done. Cool?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

Post by Scott Mayers »

Atla wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:57 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:27 am Since Nothing is assumed to be unable to exist absolutely, Absolute Nothing is identical to Absolute false (not true anywhere absolutely)
"nothing exists" is a proposition, "false" is a truth-value, how can you equate them? nothing is the lack of anything, including the lack of truth-values
The definition of ALL propositions in ALL systems that I have studied is, "a statement that has the property of being either 'true' or 'false'."

Thus, if "Absolutely nothing exists.", given as a proper proposition, it assures that it is either 'true' or 'false'. If is not able to be 'true' by meaning regardless, then it could only be 'false' and NEVER 'true'. So either it is an exceptional proposition that ONLY by NECESSITY has ONE possible value absolutely (such as Absolute False implies), then as a 'proposition', it has to be 'absolutely not' a proposition at the same time. Thus, either there is a flaw in defining a 'proposition' or a proposition CAN be the 'position of an absolute'.

And given 'absolute (anything)' is also a strictly isolated concept devoid of having a property beyond itself, then any absolute doesn't require being strictly evaluated as having 'value' OR it has both simultaneously.

If we are to assume Absolute Nothing is Absolutely NEVER TRUE, then it is Absolutely False and thus can be BOTH True and False simultaneously OR lack any value at all.

Given it would have the property, then of Absolutely False OR, if Absolutely True for BEING 'absolutely not-true', then Absolutely Nothing is justly most INCLUSIVE of any (potentially mistaken) belief OR reality.
What cannot be permitted is Absolute Truth for Totality because it is NEVER ABLE to be 'false' BY DEFINITION.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:46 am
Age wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 8:11 am "scott mayers", If you just wrote out a VERY SIMPLE two, three, four, or more premise and conclusion argument, then I could and would SHOW you WHERE, HOW, and WHY it is NOT sound NOR valid, or just plain wrong.

And then, if you showed signs of being interest, could SHOW you what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.
I cannot argue with you. You DICTATE to me that you do not 'assume' all the while assuming you know what I am saying is CERTAINLY nonsense with closure.
This IS a 'philosophy' forum, so if you CANNOT 'argue' with "another" in this forum, then what does this suggest, to you?

LOOK, I do NOT 'assume' I know what you are saying is CERTAINLY nonsense with closure. I am 100% CERTAIN I KNOW, without ANY doubt, that what you are saying is CERTAINLY nonsense with closure. And, I can PROVE this to be True. That is; IF ANY one is Truly interested in SEEING how.

But, if ANY one BELIEVES or ASSUMES that 'I' could NOT KNOW nor could NOT PROVE this, then this means that they are NOT YET Truly OPEN enough to being ABLE TO SEE how I ACTUALLY can KNOW and PROVE this.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:46 am You've EXPLODED again in your responses and all it ASSURES me, not merely assumed, that you have no interest in 'listening' yourself.
But YOUR ASSUMPTION that I have "EXPLODED" is so far from thee Truth of things.

I NEVER "exploded". So, what made you ASSUME such a thing?

I HAVE LISTENED to you. And what I have been doing is EXPLAINING WHERE you are WRONG, HOW you are WRONG, and WHY you are WRONG. But you appear to NOT accept that you could even be WRONG.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:46 am I have no reason to care about your opinion from here on in.
Well do NOT care about "my opinion". I have NO care if you do or do NOT care.

LOOK, I am NOT here, in this forum, to PROVE nor even SHOW what I KNOW. I am just here to question and challenge those who make CLAIMS. This way I am LEARNING how to better explain what 'it' is that I will one day.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:46 am You've defined me as having a 'belief', .....although 'assuming absolutely nothing' is impermissible to you BY MY DEFINTION.
WHAT?

I have said 'Absolutely Nothing' is NOT just permissible but is an ACTUAL EXISTENCE. I have also INFORMED YOU that Absolutely Nothing HAS TO EXIST, in places.

I have just said that Absolutely Nothing is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE to exist, let alone ACTUALLY existed. I also partly EXPLAINED the very reasons WHY Absolutely Nothing is an IMPOSSIBILITY.

'you', "scott mayers" is the one who does NOT want to LISTEN to this. This is because if you did LISTEN, then you would HAVE TO get rid of YOUR THEORY/THEOREM COMPLETELY. And, you OBVIOUSLY do NOT want to do this.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:46 am I can't even waste my time further with you.
If you can NOT explain YOUR THEORY to the MOST SIMPLEST one in this forum, then what hope do you have in EXPLAINING YOUR THEORY to the rest of Everyone else?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:46 am I would have liked to respond to some of the above book you wrote but don't have any useful reason to be heckled when you could CHOOSE to leave for not liking anything I have to say.
LOOK, if ANY one wants to CLAIM some 'thing' to be true, especially in a philosophy or scientific group/forum, then EXPECT to be CHALLENGED. If one can NOT counter CHALLENGES or can NOT back up and support their CLAIMS WHOLEHEARTEDLY, then just ACCEPT that what they CLAIM is NOT YET CORRECT, thus FINISHED.

I suggest using CHALLENGES to BETTER YOUR THEORY, which might just MEAN CHANGING YOUR THEORY somewhat.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:46 am Why bother unless you LIKE TO HECKLE?
YOUR PERCEPTION of "HECKLING" is just YOUR ASSUMPTION ALONE HERE.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:46 am That defines 'trolling' the speaker with behaviors meant only to derail my efforts in an abusive way.
Is this what you REALLY perceive is HAPPENING and OCCURRING here?

I suggest just CONCENTRATING on YOUR THEORY ONLY here now.

Remember, it is YOU who made the CLAIM that you HAVE PROOF for some 'thing'. So, WHY are you so DEFENSIVE in just ACKNOWLEDGING that you have FAILED COMPLETELY TO PROVIDE ANY PROOF YET?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:46 am Please quit here given you have PROVEN to me that you've PROVEN to yourself that anything I have to say here is idiotic and insane to you.
But NOT EVERY thing you say here is idiotic and insane to me. That is YOUR ASSUMPTION ONLY.

ONLY the parts that say which are IDIOTIC and INSANE are IDIOTIC and INSANE.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:46 am I am formally asking you to STOP posting here in this thread.
You can "formally request" (whatever that means) ABSOLUTELY ANY thing here, in this thread.

But, if you are going to continue to make CLAIMS, then I am going to CHOOSE whether I am going to challenge and/or question them, or NOT. Understood?

I suggest that if you do NOT like to be challenged or do NOT like to answer clarifying questions, then you STOP making CLAIMS, which you BELIEVE are true.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:46 am What I, a mere 'human being' of derision in your terms, will only continue to be disapproving for you regardless. I accept that I am UNABLE to prove ANYTHING satisfactorily to you IN PRINCIPLE. So we are done. Cool?
And, if you are UNABLE to prove ANYTHING to, little old simple, 'me', then you are going to be COMPLETELY UNABLE to prove ANYTHING to absolutely ANY one else.

Are you even OPEN to the fact that what you CLAIM here could be WRONG, or partly wrong?

What has ONLY been happening here between the 'you' and the 'I' IS; 'you' CLAIM that there was Absolutely Nothing at the, so called, "origin" of Everything. And, all 'I' am essentially doing is asking 'you' to CLARIFY how this 'Absolutely Nothing' could exist AND how Everything could come from Absolutely Nothing. You could start by just CLARIFYING HOW this COULD BE POSSIBLE.

But, if as you say, you are UNABLE to do this, satisfactorily, then I would say this SUGGESTS that you NEED to go back and take a good hard LOOK AT YOUR, so called, "theory" and work out WHY you are UNABLE to EXPLAIN and PROVE 'it', satisfactorily.

By the way, is it just 'me' who you are UNABLE to prove your CLAIM here, satisfactorily, or are there "others" as well?

Also, you once again above mentioned about "wasting your time" YET you 'wasted so much time' writing ALL of this, which NONE of it DIRECTLY responded to the issue at hand, which is; YOUR CLAIM.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:04 am Noted. I am very very aware of the issues regarding those who feel that logic is a mere artificial tool that demands ONLY 'empirical' processes of reasoning. This is restricted to the vast majority of people in all times who believe that ONLY DIRECT witness to something from the senses ALONE are all that is considered 'real'. To me, it is a POLITIC to demand this because it ignores fundamentally that logic itself is LESS sound than those using it to argue for ANYTHING, including the things that people use their senses for.
You need to note "logic" is a weak tool to understand reality. Note Kant's comment on 'logic'.
Kant in CPR wrote:The sphere of Logic is quite precisely delimited; its sole concern is to give an exhaustive exposition and a strict proof of the Formal Rules of all Thought, whether it be a priori or Empirical, whatever be its Origin or its Object, and whatever hindrances, accidental or natural, it may encounter in our Minds.

That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations, whereby it [logic] is justified in abstracting indeed, it is under obligation to do so from all Objects of Knowledge and their differences, leaving the Understanding [reason & intellect] nothing to deal with save itself and its Form.

But for Reason to enter on the sure path of Science is, of course, much more difficult, since it [reason] has to deal not with itself alone but also with Objects.
Logic, therefore, as a propaedeutic, forms, as it were, only the vestibule of the sciences; and when we are concerned with specific Modes of Knowledge, while Logic is indeed presupposed in any critical estimate of them, yet for the actual acquiring of them [specific knowledge] we have to look to the sciences properly so called, that is, to the Objective Sciences.
CPR Preface
As for objective sciences, their truths must be accompanied by credible verification and justification with critical thinking. e.g. scientific truths.
I also HAVE a theory that is about demonstrating how reality DOES have a 'logic' (a patterned mechanism) that is NOT based on our personal bias of perspective. That is, where 'science' is a political convention that REQUIRES more than one person, and certainly AT LEAST one person, I am arguing for how Nature itself operates independent of opinions of people AND that SOME real 'mechanism' (a logic) that is defaulted to be understood as existing apriori. If not, then not even the institute of science is valid nor sound.
But logic [abstracted] is merely a skeleton. If you missed out the meat of Nature, you are off tangent from what reality is as-it-is. This is especially so when the user [humans] are excluded from the conclusions of logic.
Note how Modern Physics and Quantum Physics has to give in to take into account the experimenter and observer as qualified part of their conclusions.
The debate here is thus about whether I am PERMITTED to argue about ultimate foundations in physics because it might upset those who can't fathom the possibility of Totality as founded on NOTHING versus SOMETHING. To me, the default to demanding that SOME being has to exist a priori versus NOTHING, is itself a 'religious' and political construct because it begs that it is either 'taboo' to suggest or mentally ill of one to propose.
Totality from mere logic alone is a thing-in-itself, i.e. an illusion.
Therefore, whether Kant (or other famed philosopher) has argued something that you (or others) think is completely exhaustively argued is irrelevant unless it is begging me to shut up when I CAN argue for a mechanism of Nature to 'cause' all from absolutely nothing. The error is NOT mine here. The error to me is how others are BIASED to favor the PRACTICAL considerations based upon assuming their own existence AS a part of the proof but ingore that this is indifferent to replacing some 'God' to one's own self....that it is 'taboo' to presume a mechanism of Nature apart from our own local perceptions in which we are not allowed to QUESTION any foundations more fundamental.
The error is you are ignorant of the limitation of logic as and abstracted tool. Using logic to establish reality is Like using a chopper to do brain surgery.
I noticed that many philosophers, like Kant, who argue against another philosopher's works are more often than not inappropriately dismissing or favoring another based on their OWN bias of MISINTERPRETATION of the other sources. When I read Plato's works, for instance, I became shocked of other's interpretations of 'absolutes' or 'forms' for how they misappropriate alternative interpretations than I think the philosopher meant. For instance, Platos absolutes were deemed absolute non-sense (pun intended) by many of the authors that come after him because of them re-interpreting Plato's works as the inspirational utility for poor thinking elsewhere. This is an 'associative' caricature like how a serial killer might have asserted they read, "Catcher in the Rye" as inspiration to one's actions. Does the fault of the original author exist for those who misinterpret their works? I say no. And thus, if I were to grant a hearing of someone who asserts their inspiration, while it may help to ask HOW they associated this, their 'inspirational interpretation' is NOT relevant to the associated authors of the works one grants credit to.
The critiques of by Philosophers are not done without basis. They will offer their arguments but the question is whether their arguments are sound or not.
On point you need to note is Metaphysical and ontological issues are very sophisticated and contentious as compare those of objective Science or Mathematics.
Note Kant;
Kant wrote:They [conclusions] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them [the illusions].
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
CPR B97
Thus Plato though a philosophical genius in various issue, did succumbed to be trapped in an illusion that there is ultimate objective reality [universals and form] beyond empirical reality. It is the same for many other genius philosophers who were trapped by this subliminal psychological impulse to reify an illusion.

So, sorry if you disagree with me NOT accepting Kant as some prerequisite authority that you think I MUST read whom you think should dissolve my intent to continue arguing for something I argue independently. If I make some rational error that you think Kant already 'closed' the issue on, so be it. If your interpretation suffices to close the door on what possible argument I might present as pre-nullified by you, this ends my capacity to prove nor disprove anything to YOU. Nature to me has to have some ultimate 'logic' for consistent worlds in order for our own Universe to exist. Whether some will DECLARE that we can NEVER determine the mechanisms of ultimate Nature, to me, this is itself the paradoxical anti-logical assertion that says,

"This statement is the ONLY absolute certainty: There are NO absolute certainties."

This is how many 'scientists' think even where they have no apparent 'religion' they assert an association to. But it is a political expediant that merely TABOOS those who dare to go against those in power, not something that is literally a LAW in itself. It is a means to assure the perpetuity of some people's AUTHORITY by demanding it is a 'law' itself that we must continue to believe in them, count on them, and in practice, place our investments in their superiority forever unquestionably.

My argument here is based motivationally on the only assumption that there is a reason for all that exist that is dependent upon nothing being necessary. And it is hard to argue when the very means of expressing 'nothing' is biased to paradoxically crossed interpretation itself.
As stated above, logic [abstracted] is very limited which you don’t seem to acknowledge. As such whatever that is an ultimate-logic-in-Nature is very limited in representing what is really-Nature or Nature-in-Itself.

After having spending years researching Kant [as one of the standard bearer of knowledge] I am very confident his philosophies are the passport to understand what is reality [without an ultimate] really is, i.e. reality is conditioned upon human conditions and do not exists in itself.
For me, you have to convince me Kant is VERY wrong, for that intellectual obligation, you have to at least understand [before agreeing or disagreeing] what Kant’s views, thus the need to read his works.

Not too long ago I was bombarded with the works of Heidegger and I know I could not counter until I have done some serious studies on Heidegger. So I did spend a year seriously digging into Heidegger before I could counter on issues related to Heidegger. I discovered Heidegger who condemned Kant severely was also a victim as a wise man clinging to some illusion in his sense of Being. [since I did refresh I am rusty on Heidegger at present].
It is the same with most of the neo-Kantians who were ‘seduced’ into clinging on to that ultimate ‘something’.

You relied upon ‘reason’ “for all that exist that is dependent upon nothing being necessary” but reason [logic] being abstracted from reality is too weak to understand reality fully especially the more refined perspectives of reality.

I believe it is more rational [extended from logic] [as in your case] to believe in ‘nothing’ rather than in comparison to many who cling directly to ‘something’. To them, things cannot come from ‘nothing’.

Btw, Buddhism core principle is that ultimate reality is nothing, i.e. emptiness or nothingness.
While Christianity and Western sociologists and psychologists view a state of emptiness as a negative, unwanted condition, in some Eastern philosophies such as Buddhist philosophy and Taoism, emptiness (Śūnyatā) represents seeing through the illusion of independent self-nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emptiness
Śūnyatā (Sanskrit: शून्यता, romanized: śūnyatā; Pali: suññatā) – pronounced in English as /ʃuːnˈjɑː.tɑː/ (shoon-ya-ta), translated most often as emptiness[1], vacuity, and sometimes voidness[2] – is a Buddhist concept which has multiple meanings depending on its doctrinal context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

But in your case, your ‘nothing’ is still indirectly “something” at least psychologically, i.e. nothing causes everything

"Nothing causes Everything" thus can mean

-> There is no ultimate cause of anything.
-> That which causes everything is itself no (real) thing.
-> There is not one thing that leads or is necessary for anything or everything.

There are more I'm sure. I am just making the point that the term, "nothing" itself is itself hard for many to interpret as having meaning, let alone the issue of adding the qualifying term, "absolute" to it. I am arguing that there IS a way to demonstrate Nature as ABLE to manifest reality without a need for anything SPECIAL because the universal NON-SPECIAL reality of 'nothing' is most UNIVERSALLY included in EVERYTHING.
Your above stance of NOT being able to let go is due to cognitive dissonance, i.e. there must be something, even if it is ‘nothing’.
Whilst Kant did not, Buddhism address this problem directly and resolve it from a psychological and philosophical basis.

Totality doesn't even require having 'logic' at its inception any more than it requires any input. But given we are a subset OF patterns of non-things (abstractions), then 'logic' is just the recognized patterns that define 'consistent' worlds within a totality that itself doesn't require some pre-law status that demands it must be 'consistent' as a whole. That is, where Totality IS Absolutely Nothing, this is impossible to notice by our senses FROM being an Absolute Something by perspective. This is like demanding that someone blind must nevertheless still have functioning eyes to 'see' that he is blind. He can still infer meaning of this in context to the patterns he experiences from other senses. But extend this to Totality as something that LACKS even one 'sense' to observe if it were absolutely no thing. It is paradoxical perpetually only if one assumes that it has to BE 'something'. To it, though, it is NOT 'paradoxical' because it is identical to meaning it is ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING since it would imply that reality is just a 'manifestation' (a perspective) of abstract concepts themselves that are possible (pose-able, pro-pose-able, op-pose-able, anything that can be presented as an illusion of something real or not).
Kant’s philosophy is ultimately simply ‘there is no thing-in-itself’ i.e. no x-in-itself independent of human conceptions where ‘x’ stands for anything one can think of or even no_thing as in your case.
I don't need anyone to convince me that it may be impossible to 'prove' to other people with their confidence that Totality can derive from literally Absolutely Nothing, because Totality itself cannot 'prove' itself anymore real than it could prove itself unreal. But I can argue that for whatever is the ultimate 'truth' about reality, you can 'construct/reconstruct' it in a universally mechanical way that explains how something can be manifest 'real' from even that which is just as 'unreal' but NOT the reverse. That is, I cannot argue by BEGINNING with what is 'real' to prove that everything originates (or is 'founded') upon something that is 'not real' to us in our present context of having senses. You need sensation to be first derived before it can operate as a sensible foundation.
Granted you can have your personal conviction and personal confidence you are 100% right.
But note you are relying on ‘logic’ and worst still relying on PURE REASON which is one of the most primal and crudest intellectual tool available. You need to take into account the above limitations.
The only alternative is for you to POSTULATE it, or 'pretend' it is real for the sake of argument to witness HOW the apparently 'artificial' game you may assume I am creating can become constructive. Just think of the 'postulate' of "Absolutely Nothing" as identical to meaning the same as 'There is no such thing as a postulate." It is certainly a paradoxical assumption that is itself 'constructive' in that it perpetuates an eternally circularity of meaning. Then, we just require adapting a complete system of reasoning based on human-language-only 'logic' that you DO accept is 'validating' of what you DO accept as 'real'.

Postulate 1: There is no such thing as a 'postulate'.
Using say, Propositional Calculus, given this system is proven 'complete' by us humans, then IF we assume this as the only input premise to an argument, this still leads to the same kind of argument I presented earlier:

0 (1)Propostional Calculus exists.[Accepted theory]
1 (2)Postulate-1 real,& allowed by the rules by premise (1) for tautology.[Assumption]
___________
0 (3)Premise (1) implies Premise (2) .......[1,2 Conditional Proof]
This just shows that using Propositional logic, we can assume a meaning of an assumption that is defining itself AS itself, while potentially meaningless, as able to draw both a valid and SOUND conclusion because the assumption of Postulate-1's meaning draws a sound conclusion: That if the system of propositional calculus itself is 'sound', then if Premise (2) false, then so is the Propositional Calculus for validating the conclusion as able to be 'sound' based on the assumption (1) as a defaulted 'theorem'. [The '0' there indicates it is a theorem or theory trusted external to this particular argument and so BEGS itself 'true' by the same kind of 'tautology' I used in premise (2).]

I understand that you may not have the particular background on Propositional Calculus but should still at least intuitively understand this as meaning that "if the system of reasoning cannot prove its own existence, it does not mean that the system itself is incorrect because it is itself the 'foundation' of its own cause. If it is unsound to use a foundational logic that lacks proof of itself, then it is not 'sound' to draw ANY conclusions from it in ANY other situation where we DO think it is justified.

Absolutely Nothing is the foundational 'system' of Totality in the same way.
If you using logic to postulate anything [even absolutely-Nothing], note the limitation of logic and Kant’s statement of the weakness of logic. Whatever is logically inferred cannot be real until it is verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
If you are resorting to mathematics, note mathematics a subject that is conditional, thus whatever results therefrom cannot be a thing-in-itself or no_thing-in-itself which you are postulating.

Note Kant did assume the thing-in-itself as real but that is for a different qualified perspective.
Atla
Posts: 6674
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:33 am The definition of ALL propositions in ALL systems that I have studied is, "a statement that has the property of being either 'true' or 'false'."

Thus, if "Absolutely nothing exists.", given as a proper proposition, it assures that it is either 'true' or 'false'. If is not able to be 'true' by meaning regardless, then it could only be 'false' and NEVER 'true'. So either it is an exceptional proposition that ONLY by NECESSITY has ONE possible value absolutely (such as Absolute False implies), then as a 'proposition', it has to be 'absolutely not' a proposition at the same time. Thus, either there is a flaw in defining a 'proposition' or a proposition CAN be the 'position of an absolute'.

And given 'absolute (anything)' is also a strictly isolated concept devoid of having a property beyond itself, then any absolute doesn't require being strictly evaluated as having 'value' OR it has both simultaneously.
If nothing existed, then "absolutely nothing exists" would be true. Even though the proposition wouldn't exist either, and humans wouldn't exist either to make the proposition and evaluate it, and truth values wouldn't exist either.
If we are to assume Absolute Nothing is Absolutely NEVER TRUE, then it is Absolutely False and thus can be BOTH True and False simultaneously OR lack any value at all.

Given it would have the property, then of Absolutely False OR, if Absolutely True for BEING 'absolutely not-true', then Absolutely Nothing is justly most INCLUSIVE of any (potentially mistaken) belief OR reality.
What cannot be permitted is Absolute Truth for Totality because it is NEVER ABLE to be 'false' BY DEFINITION.
If it lacks any value at all, then it can't be used in logical proofs.

I mean I'm curious what you're trying to accomplish here, it's obvious that we can't derive anything from 'nothing' beacuse it's nothing. It's also pretty obvious that it's illogical to think that the world had an origin, that's probably just outdated everyday or religious thinking. Nothing as origin is a double no-go.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

Post by Scott Mayers »

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

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

But lets try. Everything is a 'mechanism'.

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

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

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

Can you agree to this this far?

[I cannot bother with responding to whatever else you wrote yet. I need to determine first that you UNDERSTAND me, something that I do not see. Then we may get back to whatever extra concerns you still have.]
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

Post by Scott Mayers »

Atla wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:34 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:33 am The definition of ALL propositions in ALL systems that I have studied is, "a statement that has the property of being either 'true' or 'false'."

Thus, if "Absolutely nothing exists.", given as a proper proposition, it assures that it is either 'true' or 'false'. If is not able to be 'true' by meaning regardless, then it could only be 'false' and NEVER 'true'. So either it is an exceptional proposition that ONLY by NECESSITY has ONE possible value absolutely (such as Absolute False implies), then as a 'proposition', it has to be 'absolutely not' a proposition at the same time. Thus, either there is a flaw in defining a 'proposition' or a proposition CAN be the 'position of an absolute'.

And given 'absolute (anything)' is also a strictly isolated concept devoid of having a property beyond itself, then any absolute doesn't require being strictly evaluated as having 'value' OR it has both simultaneously.
If nothing existed, then "absolutely nothing exists" would be true. Even though the proposition wouldn't exist either, and humans wouldn't exist either to make the proposition and evaluate it, and truth values wouldn't exist either.
If we are to assume Absolute Nothing is Absolutely NEVER TRUE, then it is Absolutely False and thus can be BOTH True and False simultaneously OR lack any value at all.

Given it would have the property, then of Absolutely False OR, if Absolutely True for BEING 'absolutely not-true', then Absolutely Nothing is justly most INCLUSIVE of any (potentially mistaken) belief OR reality.
What cannot be permitted is Absolute Truth for Totality because it is NEVER ABLE to be 'false' BY DEFINITION.
If it lacks any value at all, then it can't be used in logical proofs.

I mean I'm curious what you're trying to accomplish here, it's obvious that we can't derive anything from 'nothing' beacuse it's nothing. It's also pretty obvious that it's illogical to think that the world had an origin, that's probably just 4]
You are hooked with some bias: that you assume 'causation' and 'time' as required as a source. You are assuming that 'nothing cannot CAUSE anything'. But what of 'time' itself? You can't use the term 'cause' because we are stuck with justification as it relates to time. But then what CAN we use? One that the logicians use that I try but is less understood by the average person, is apriori which means, "without prior". The term, 'prior', still begs time and so they opted to assert that which has NO time and so is a "source" without concern to time.

If you cannot get your mind to accept this, then I cannot help you (nor others) understand me here. This simple concept is real on the basis of Totality. It doesn't even have the concept 'true' nor 'false' given it contains this such that there is NO outside. Not even 'nothing' exists outside the meaning of 'Totality'. I know that throughout time most people could not understand this and it is basically 'tabooed' in a worse way than the most absurd religious beliefs that POSIT special existences biased to human purpose.
Post Reply