Proof of Nothing

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2648
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Proof of Nothing

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:48 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 1:18 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:03 am To prove nothing is to prove nothing at all thus no proof exists. The absence of proof for nothing is necessitated by the nature of nothing at including proof as fundamentally nothing. Considering there is no proof for "nothing" nothing cannot be disproven either given an absence of proof for nothing is in itself nothing.


Nothing can neither be proven nor disproven but rather taken axiomatically as this axiomatic nature reflects the same absence of form in which a form impresses itself upon. Axioms are taken on nothing, given no thought is evident behind the axiom for it is strictly taken "as is" without anything behind it. The axiom is rooted in nothing thus nothing is axiomatic.

This axiomatic nature can neither be proven or disproven.
An axiom is not an assumption. An axiom is an axiom because to deny it is a self-contradiction. One must assume the axiom is true in order to formulate a denial of the axiom.

For example. The fact of existence is axiomatic. "There is existence." One cannot deny existence without assuming the existence the denier. If there were no existence there would be no one to deny it.
An axiom is accepted as is, as accepted as is it is imprinted on the psyche thus is assumed by the psyche. To deny an axiom, thus resulting in a contradiction is to assume a contradiction. Contradiction is accepted purely for what it is.

On one hand you claim an axiom is not an assumption then state one must assume the axiom is true to deny it. So which is it?
You're right. That was not carefully worded. I do not mean, "assume," the way the logical positivists, you, and Platonists mean it, just anything one would like to assert without reason or basis. I mean an assertion that must be based on some reason, specifically, that to assert otherwise is self contradictory.

I don't personally care if you want call wild assumptions base on nothing more than whim, "axioms." Call them anything you like. I can assure you, however, any reasoning which uses them a premises cannot possibly be right, except by accident.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7057
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Proof of Nothing

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:04 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:48 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 1:18 am
An axiom is not an assumption. An axiom is an axiom because to deny it is a self-contradiction. One must assume the axiom is true in order to formulate a denial of the axiom.

For example. The fact of existence is axiomatic. "There is existence." One cannot deny existence without assuming the existence the denier. If there were no existence there would be no one to deny it.
An axiom is accepted as is, as accepted as is it is imprinted on the psyche thus is assumed by the psyche. To deny an axiom, thus resulting in a contradiction is to assume a contradiction. Contradiction is accepted purely for what it is.

On one hand you claim an axiom is not an assumption then state one must assume the axiom is true to deny it. So which is it?
You're right. That was not carefully worded. I do not mean, "assume," the way the logical positivists, you, and Platonists mean it, just anything one would like to assert without reason or basis. I mean an assertion that must be based on some reason, specifically, that to assert otherwise is self contradictory.

I don't personally care if you want call wild assumptions base on nothing more than whim, "axioms." Call them anything you like. I can assure you, however, any reasoning which uses them a premises cannot possibly be right, except by accident.
Even the term axiomatic must be taken axiomatically thus resulting in a circle. All axioms are cyclical by nature and as cyclical are empty in themselves.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2648
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Proof of Nothing

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:17 pm Even the term axiomatic must be taken axiomatically thus resulting in a circle. All axioms are cyclical by nature and as cyclical are empty in themselves.
Fine, if that's what you believe. But why bother with them at all? Just anything can be an, "axiom." Why not, "assume," philosophy is actually a form of soup? It's axiomatic.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7057
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Proof of Nothing

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:44 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:17 pm Even the term axiomatic must be taken axiomatically thus resulting in a circle. All axioms are cyclical by nature and as cyclical are empty in themselves.
Fine, if that's what you believe. But why bother with them at all? Just anything can be an, "axiom." Why not, "assume," philosophy is actually a form of soup? It's axiomatic.
Philosophy is a form of nutrition for the mind. Soup is nutrition. Philosophy is soup for the mind.

There is a reason why philosophy can be best expressed through poetry.
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Proof of Nothing

Post by nothing »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:35 pm To place nothing as part of a two sided coin, ie one side, is to equate nothing to something thus it is no longer nothing.

Dually I stated nothing can neither be proven or disproven. To prove nothing is to prove nothing thus an absence of proof exists as nothing cannot be proven. To disprove nothing is to disprove nothing thus an absence of disproof exists as nothing cannot be disproven for it is nothing.
Nobody (else besides yourself) is equating something "to" nothing, rather "with" nothing because they are naturally an inseparable binary.
Neither one can/does exist in isolation from the other - like yang and yin. You can't have one without the other.
You can't talk about "nothing" unless (as) an absence of "something" (and vice versa).

In the real, physical universe: conjugation exists naturally (ie. the binary).
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7057
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Proof of Nothing

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

nothing wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 12:59 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:35 pm To place nothing as part of a two sided coin, ie one side, is to equate nothing to something thus it is no longer nothing.

Dually I stated nothing can neither be proven or disproven. To prove nothing is to prove nothing thus an absence of proof exists as nothing cannot be proven. To disprove nothing is to disprove nothing thus an absence of disproof exists as nothing cannot be disproven for it is nothing.
Nobody (else besides yourself) is equating something "to" nothing, rather "with" nothing because they are naturally an inseparable binary.
Neither one can/does exist in isolation from the other - like yang and yin. You can't have one without the other.
You can't talk about "nothing" unless (as) an absence of "something" (and vice versa).

In the real, physical universe: conjugation exists naturally (ie. the binary).
And as the binary you are equating nothing to something thus it is no longer nothing as it is "a side of a coin". Only being exists and the binary is between unity and multiplicity.
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Proof of Nothing

Post by nothing »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:01 am
nothing wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 12:59 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:35 pm To place nothing as part of a two sided coin, ie one side, is to equate nothing to something thus it is no longer nothing.

Dually I stated nothing can neither be proven or disproven. To prove nothing is to prove nothing thus an absence of proof exists as nothing cannot be proven. To disprove nothing is to disprove nothing thus an absence of disproof exists as nothing cannot be disproven for it is nothing.
Nobody (else besides yourself) is equating something "to" nothing, rather "with" nothing because they are naturally an inseparable binary.
Neither one can/does exist in isolation from the other - like yang and yin. You can't have one without the other.
You can't talk about "nothing" unless (as) an absence of "something" (and vice versa).

In the real, physical universe: conjugation exists naturally (ie. the binary).
And as the binary you are equating nothing to something thus it is no longer nothing as it is "a side of a coin". Only being exists and the binary is between unity and multiplicity.
Nobody is "equating" nothing "to" something except yourself.
Nothing does not "equate" (sic) "to" (sic) something.
Nothing does relate "with" something.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7057
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Proof of Nothing

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

nothing wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 10:28 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:01 am
nothing wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 12:59 am

Nobody (else besides yourself) is equating something "to" nothing, rather "with" nothing because they are naturally an inseparable binary.
Neither one can/does exist in isolation from the other - like yang and yin. You can't have one without the other.
You can't talk about "nothing" unless (as) an absence of "something" (and vice versa).

In the real, physical universe: conjugation exists naturally (ie. the binary).
And as the binary you are equating nothing to something thus it is no longer nothing as it is "a side of a coin". Only being exists and the binary is between unity and multiplicity.
Nobody is "equating" nothing "to" something except yourself.
Nothing does not "equate" (sic) "to" (sic) something.
Nothing does relate "with" something.
"Neither one can/does exist in isolation from the other - like yang and yin. You can't have one without the other."

You equate nothingness to one phenomenon as you stated above.
Post Reply