The Everything/Some Thing Paradox

[Eodnhoj7]

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but shouldn't we define, "thing", before trying to define [some]thing and [every]thing?

Or we can define "definition" and end in a non-sensical regressive looping.

I fail to see how defining words leads to a non-sensical regressive looping. If that were so then language use would have been abandoned long ago, like some bird species have abandoned flight because their wings are useless for such activity.

A definition is a type of representation where certain scribbles and utterances represent other things that are not necessarily just more scribbles or utterances.

What makes some scribble on this page a word and not just a scribble?

Reality is beyond the senses and as such any statement about it must be non-sensical.

[Trajk Logik]

Or we can define "definition" and end in a non-sensical regressive looping.

I fail to see how defining words leads to a non-sensical regressive looping. If that were so then language use would have been abandoned long ago, like some bird species have abandoned flight because their wings are useless for such activity.

A definition is a type of representation where certain scribbles and utterances represent other things that are not necessarily just more scribbles or utterances.

What makes some scribble on this page a word and not just a scribble?

Reality is beyond the senses and as such any statement about it must be non-sensical.

How do you know anything is beyond the senses without using your senses? If anything were beyond the senses you'd have no evidence for it and would be making a wild assumption. How do you prove anything is beyond the senses? What does that even mean? Is your statement about reality? If so then it's non-sensical. Many philosophers don't seem to realize that they undermine themselves when they say weird things like this. Philosophers misuse of language is the problem. Not our senses.

[popeye1945]

Yep.

Just a thought, seeing as there is no such thing as a closed system, as far as we know not even the universe, then nothing is whole according to this perspective or rather, we cannot perceive the whole.

The whole is without comparison, other wise it would not be the whole. Without comparison it is fundamentally no-thing as thingness requires contrast. The open system requires something beyond it through which to move thus the open system is not the whole. Being encapsulates itself.

You are speaking from an anthropomorphic place and if thingness is an idea, then there can be nothing to consider beyond an imperfect perspective. Your second point is excellent, which only means there can be no such thing as a closed system but from the same imperfect perspective.

[Eodnhoj7]

I fail to see how defining words leads to a non-sensical regressive looping. If that were so then language use would have been abandoned long ago, like some bird species have abandoned flight because their wings are useless for such activity.

A definition is a type of representation where certain scribbles and utterances represent other things that are not necessarily just more scribbles or utterances.

What makes some scribble on this page a word and not just a scribble?

Reality is beyond the senses and as such any statement about it must be non-sensical.

How do you know anything is beyond the senses without using your senses? If anything were beyond the senses you'd have no evidence for it and would be making a wild assumption. How do you prove anything is beyond the senses? What does that even mean? Is your statement about reality? If so then it's non-sensical. Many philosophers don't seem to realize that they undermine themselves when they say weird things like this. Philosophers misuse of language is the problem. Not our senses.

Nothing, or rather no-thingness, is beyond the senses. To move beyond the senses is to become nothing....the nothingness from which reality originates.

[Eodnhoj7]

Just a thought, seeing as there is no such thing as a closed system, as far as we know not even the universe, then nothing is whole according to this perspective or rather, we cannot perceive the whole.

The whole is without comparison, other wise it would not be the whole. Without comparison it is fundamentally no-thing as thingness requires contrast. The open system requires something beyond it through which to move thus the open system is not the whole. Being encapsulates itself.

You are speaking from an anthropomorphic place and if thingness is an idea, then there can be nothing to consider beyond an imperfect perspective. Your second point is excellent, which only means there can be no such thing as a closed system but from the same imperfect perspective.

"Nothing to consider beyond an imperfect perspective" is a perspective that self-contradicts.

[Trajk Logik]

Reality is beyond the senses and as such any statement about it must be non-sensical.

How do you know anything is beyond the senses without using your senses? If anything were beyond the senses you'd have no evidence for it and would be making a wild assumption. How do you prove anything is beyond the senses? What does that even mean? Is your statement about reality? If so then it's non-sensical. Many philosophers don't seem to realize that they undermine themselves when they say weird things like this. Philosophers misuse of language is the problem. Not our senses.

Nothing, or rather no-thingness, is beyond the senses. To move beyond the senses is to become nothing....the nothingness from which reality originates.

This ignores what I have asked. You're not addressing my points. It also sounds like mystical woo nonsense.

It is an assumption that there is nothing or something beyond the senses. How would you know either way without using your senses?

Something originating from nothing is a contradiction. It's easier to conceive of something that has always existed than It is to conceive something coming from nothing.

[Trajk Logik]

How do you know anything is beyond the senses without using your senses? If anything were beyond the senses you'd have no evidence for it and would be making a wild assumption. How do you prove anything is beyond the senses? What does that even mean? Is your statement about reality? If so then it's non-sensical. Many philosophers don't seem to realize that they undermine themselves when they say weird things like this. Philosophers misuse of language is the problem. Not our senses.

Nothing, or rather no-thingness, is beyond the senses. To move beyond the senses is to become nothing....the nothingness from which reality originates.

This ignores what I have asked. You're not addressing my points. It also sounds like mystical woo nonsense. I can assure you that there are things happening in my house that are beyond your senses. I hope you still exist even when I'm not reading your words on this screen and you are beyond my senses.

It is an assumption that there is nothing or something beyond the senses. How would you know either way without using your senses?

Something originating from nothing is a contradiction. It's easier to conceive of something that has always existed than It is to conceive something coming from nothing.

[Eodnhoj7]

How do you know anything is beyond the senses without using your senses? If anything were beyond the senses you'd have no evidence for it and would be making a wild assumption. How do you prove anything is beyond the senses? What does that even mean? Is your statement about reality? If so then it's non-sensical. Many philosophers don't seem to realize that they undermine themselves when they say weird things like this. Philosophers misuse of language is the problem. Not our senses.

Nothing, or rather no-thingness, is beyond the senses. To move beyond the senses is to become nothing....the nothingness from which reality originates.

This ignores what I have asked. You're not addressing my points. It also sounds like mystical woo nonsense.

It is an assumption that there is nothing or something beyond the senses. How would you know either way without using your senses?

Something originating from nothing is a contradiction. It's easier to conceive of something that has always existed than It is to conceive something coming from nothing.

No it addresses it from another angle.

1. It is an assumption that everything that exists can be observed through the senses...and yet what is not an assumption? Do you know the Munchhausen Trilemma?

2. No-thing is beyond the senses as the senses only observe things. No-thingness is non-sensical. In these respects to observe no-thing is to observe a contradiction and contradictions are senseless as no-thing is senseless. Contradiction is an absence of the sensical, the absence of the sensical is no-thingness.

3. If only being occurs through being then being becomes self-referential and without comparison thus equivocating it to no-thing as comparison is necessary for distinction. 'Everything' is the same as 'nothing'.

4. The change of one phenomenon into another necessitates a gap between the phenomenon which allows for distinction. The gap is an absence of thingness through which being moves given being can only move through nothing considering being cannot move through being as being is already present in that relative time and space through which it must move.