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

[Scott Mayers]

I cannot grasp your points precisely but in general the argument has an equivocation problem, i.e. from perfect-absolute to imperfect-absolute.
I still prefer absolute-absolute vs relative-absolute.

Your TOTALITY - 'than which no greater totality can be conceived' is non-empirical and transcendent. This is a totality-in-itself a perfect-absolute which cannot be real.
As such if you begin with the above you are bound to equivocate from transcendent to the empirical, thus your argument does not follow and is invalid.

Kant assert all arguments for God exists are based on equivocation, i.e. from the empirical to the transcendent.
William Craig is fond of this, e.g. generally,

• ...
  the Universe [empirical - science] began to exists,
  ...
  therefore God [transcendent-theology] exists.

I don't use Anselm's particular definition. I used it to point out that HE 'equivocated' the secular concept of Totality by simply assigning the label, "God" to the logical class, "that which no greater can be conceived", and that without that 'transference' the concept is still rational.
If you have contention with permitting any label to my meaning of 'Totality', you are just begging that the meaning described has no meaning to you just because we cannot HAVE an actual 'objective' perspective...which completely dislodges your argument in favor of 'empiricism' when THAT is itself literally NOT possible given actual 'objects' (those things in themselves) are not even perceivably sharable from the same identical perspective.....unless you WERE some 'god'!!

"that which no greater can be conceived" is merely a thought.
The question is whether the above thought do have any possible real referent.
If it has a possible real referent, then it must be empirical possibility even if it is not yet known nor verified empirically.

If "that which no greater can be conceived" is a thing-in-itself, it is NOT an empirically possible thing. It is then merely a thought and thought-only without any empirical element. To reify such a thought into objective reality is merely an illusion.

Whatever is justified by reason without any empirical elements is merely a thought and not cannot be something real.

My point is whatever is claimed to be real or possible to be real, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

Where you refer to 'totality' to be real, it must be empirically possible, e.g. total number of marbles or any empirically-based things.
Any reasoned totality-in-itself empty of any empirical elements is merely a thought which cannot be real in the empirical-philosophical sense.

You are the one imposing belief about absolutes that raises concern: there is no such thing as 'morals' absolutely.
But it is nevertheless reasonable to assume a totality as an extension of what we experience IN PRINCIPLE absolutely without resorting to calling it 'good', as the reasoning Anselm transfered the meaning of 'God is good' to it.
I don't impose a subset of value to that whole. IF it requires value in any religious way, it would have to be 'absolutely evil' as an origin for similar reasons I argue for 'absolutely nothing' as an origin. [If something originates in absolute evil, then absolutely everthing else from that point on is relatively 'good' by that absolute.]

Btw, I do not believe the absolutely-absolute or perfect-absolute can be real. They are merely thoughts without any empirical possibility.

I did not claim there are moral absolutes that are absolutely-absolute.
What I have been claiming is whatever the moral facts, they must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

Yes, we can extend a 'totality' to what we experienced but if it has no empirical element, then that has only be a thought-only which is impossible to be real empirically.
Are you familiar with Russell's 'No Man's Land'?

• Russell stated what is from Science is the empirically-known which we can stand on solid.
  While standing on the empirically-known with one foot, we can extend one foot out to feel what is within the no-man's-land of the empirical unknown.
  But we cannot jump off with two feet away from the no-man's land to view the totality of all-there-is.
  This is like jumping off two feet into la la land, where Russell accused the theologians as doing to achieve a God-views of reality.
  Russell point is, we must always leveraged on the empirical and not be independent of it.

Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.
Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.
But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; and this No Man’s Land is philosophy.
Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. (p. xiii)

As an alternative, something I just pointed out in one of my prior post above to others, that you can interpret the meaning of "Totality" to be IMPLICITLY the concept of that which assumes no such thing as 'false' beyond itself. It is merely a label to refer to all that is true AND false under one container and/or its label. The meaning is sufficiently useful and still covers all other possible conventions.

That totality may be true to a qualified conditions [e.g. to theists only or your specific framework] but it is impossible be real in the empirical & philosophical sense.
I agree such label or thought can be useful but one must always be mindful, it is merely a thought-only but never anything solidly and empirically real.

For example the idea of a perfect absolute God is a thought-only but such a thought has been very useful to the majority of people to deal with their existential crisis.
However, theists cannot claim that God to be real or possible to be real to the extent that their God will listen and answer to their prayers. Or their God is so real with a promise of salvation that will be obey God's command to kill non-believers to gain merits to salvation.

You are wrong about the empirical point of Totatlity as existing: all it takes is ONE thing to exist to provide meaning to Totality. It is itself 'incomplete' with respect to assuming time as a feature of "existence". I have chosen the term 'origin' but this can be the non-existent (without time) concept that is apriori to anything else. It is like defining matter as "that which occupies space", where space itself is absolutely necessary FOR matter to exist prior to any time considerations.

I stated, it is possible for a totality that is related to the empirical, i.e. from the totality of the numbers of marbles in a container to the totality of stars in the universe, but never the perfect-absolute totality-in-itself and which has no essential relation the empirical.

I would have no issue if you claim whatever totality-in-itself is merely a thought and restricted to thoughts only but not to real empirical things.

Re the empirical Kant did introduce the idea of the noumenon to correspond with empirical-phenomenon.
Whilst the noumenon is related to the empirical, it is merely a thought-only but never a real empirical thing.

The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.

At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility {the empirical}.
B311

From the above Kant assert the noumenon as a correspondent to the empirical phenomenon is only to be used a limiting concept, thus of negative employment, thus not a real empirical.
If considered beyond the sensibility [empirical] it is not a positive thing/object at all.

As such the noumenon aka the thing-in-itself is merely confined as a thought-only.

The point is due to the existential crisis, most people have this tendency to reify what is supposed to be a thought-only as an objective-reality [empirical] in such case, they are merely hallucinating an illusion due to psychological forces.

I believe your drive for 'totality' in the above sense is due to some very minor degree of the psychological forces pulsing unconsciously due to the existential crisis.
You can try to do some investigating and research from this angle?

This was what Kant did with his Copernican Revolution, so did the Buddha and others.

Okay, on the last point first, you think that this is something merely 'pychological'. You are questioning motive here. And while I am certain to have one, I assure you it isn't any more absurd than your search for 'moral' absolutes. I don't' need any more of a motive than to seek to find a universal foundation that can tie physics to a distinct logic. I already know that Russell and most others would frown upon my extension of his type of effort. To me, science cannot mean anything WITHOUT a logical foundation behind it, of which it does not, to me where it strictly presumes all logics as a tool that is itself unreal. If you try to build a house with an imaginary hammer, this lacks foundational reasoning for me. It is falsely presumed that 'science' is ALL that is sound when this is at BEST what EACH of us can percieve in absolute isolation to other people. As such, logic is the mechanism that HAS to operate as the foundation to physical reality, not the convening members voting on whether everyone invited in the institution agrees to the observations and the laws based ONLY upon them.

Science is based uniquely on what only an individual can observe and relay to other individuals about what they CLAIM to observe, whether they agree to the descriptions, and to attempt at GUESSING what the underlying logic of physical reality is. Science, even on an INDIVIDUAL basis (and especially necessary for agreement), uses only observations as a postulated reality. It is certainty unpostulated for the individual perceiver but NOT when sharing it with the very environment it is questioning. Other people are as equally suspect to the meaning of 'observation' about objects. My point here is that 'science' is an institutional politic that is limited to speaking about things they convene on regarding what physical reality is about but NOT so privileged to speak on the logic of the physical laws themselves. Those 'laws' are just generalizations postulated about what they learn through observations. But most of the scientists out there are still of the opinion that logic itself -- that defines what 'laws' are -- are not to be spoken of or is 'ineffible' to their domain. THAT is the empiricist limitation.

When you expect that I'd have to present to you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, I can. And if you think I can't, then you've proven me correct. In fact, I'd be more doubtful to someone who might assert they can 'observe' directly this 'absolute nothing! But you CAN infer indirectly what this is. But I KNOW that you, like others, are biased to default assuming TIME as the measure that is needed to exist as a 'source'. We are trapped to using words like 'exist' if only to be taken serious at all, though. That is, I have no word that I am able to use to express the reality of "absolutely nothing" that is acceptable to the concept of an 'origin'. The logicians of the past realized this and so came up with, apriori, only for later generations to again place 'time' in its meaning given it has the root, 'prior' in it. You cannot win. If I make up a word, like "ukko", this won't help either. I am forced to use words that we all relate to.

I also presented and clarified to you and others here that the first part of even trying to prove myself here is to demonstrate that the logical CONDITIONAL is true, not that an absolute nothing or origin exists. That is, if there IS any 'origin' (whether it be of time or not) to Totality, then the ONLY logical possiblity is for it to be absolutely nothing. And if THIS cannot even be agreed on, you default to assuming Totality in religious terms because you not only imply that absolutely ALL things are NOT possible in Totality (because you at least exclude Absolutely Nothing) but that some SPECIAL number of things in between Absoulute Nothing and Absolutely Everything has to be the case without 'empirical' proof of EXCLUSION to those extremes. On merely logical grounds, if Absolutely Somthing is all that you can assert for merely having the capacity to 'observe' at all, you cannot assert any specific disproof of this nor of any of the other 'absolutes'.

I ask you to question how ANY 'laws' of physics exists? Do you postulate the "laws of logic"? Given they are 'laws' too, whether you agree to them or not, what is any 'law' mean without the very 'law of identity' that begs it?

The 'Absolute Nothing' you have in mind is not feasible because you expect it UNABLE TO CAUSE! This is your bias, not mine. "Cause" happens to be another word that begs time too, which doesn't help. The logicians, like our friend Bertrand Russell, helped contribute to clarifying this issue and offered up, "implication", for this reason, rather than the traditional, "if/then" type statements. But it has the same problem when one might say, "Nothing exists implies no thing exists". Even if you granted, "Nothing implies no thing", it still begs 'thing' as a word that lacks precision and comes across as though it is just speaking about the term. We are trapped to communicate the underlying metaphysics of reality because we are physical.

I gave up fighting to get "science" to include the philosophical foundations it owes allegiance to. To not accept this, I just get locked out of discussions on the formal 'science' groups for not being 'empirical' enough for them. So I am forced to stick with philosophy forums to discuss this under the banner of 'metaphysics', which also has its baggage by many who thinks this means the same as those proposing a means to create horoscopes. So, we are HERE where I am NOT going to argue with you about whether it can be proven, "empirical", because to me, this term is itself a politic. [It actually relates directly to "empires" and "imperialism"....of Kings and Queens who dictate from some throne of superiority we are expected to NOT question. The belief is that the senses of something, the 'observations', are themselves absolute-absolutes as though they speak for themselves AND are 'objective', without recognizing that no such universal 'observing' vantage point exists without some 'God's Eye' to see.]

So, to close, tell me if you agree to the conditional statement, not the antecedent's nor the consequent's mapping to reality. This should NOT be a problem unless you (or others here) are missing something about what logical implication (conditions) mean. I DO believe that the "Absolute Nothing" is apriori or what you might say, ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. But I need at least to argue in stages that I can at least find agreement on here. That is, stop telling me that the implication is itself nonsensical given the parts it is arguing have meaning to you. [If they lacked meaning, you couldn't even say whether it is even possible or not.]

[Scott Mayers]

...

You do BELIEVE that you have PROOF that 'Absolutely Nothing' 'absolutely exists' 'as an Origin', correct?

If yes, then you first have to PROVE that there was an 'Origin'. Now, do you have PROOF that there was an 'Origin'?

If yes, then how to do 'you' define 'Origin'? What does 'Origin' mean, to you, EXACTLY.

I never asserted an 'origin' itself is certain, only that IF an origin exists, then it would REQUIRE to be abolutely nothing itself.

IF you had added the word 'IF' in the thread title, then this would make what you are claiming MORE CLEAR.

You need to learn what 'conditionals' are.

And I could say that YOU NEED to do some 'things'. But I do NOT do this.

IF, however, you wrote what you ACTUALLY MEANT, then so MANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS would NOT be NEEDED.

By the way, MAYBE I ALREADY KNOW what, so called, "conditionals" ARE.

But to speed the process UP SOMEWHAT, IF you wrote IF in YOUR thread title, then you would NOT 'have to' write 'conditionals'.

IN FACT, IF you wrote what you ACTUALLY MEANT the first time, then there would be NO NEED to add 'conditionals'.

For example, IF you wrote:
IF there was an 'origin' to Everything, then I have proof that Absolutely Nothing absolute exists as an origin.

Then you would have made it VERY CLEAR that you are NOT saying; Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an origin.

The latter appears to be making the claim that there was an origin.

I actually DO have MORE to say beyond the conditional and why I opted for that title. It may have been written better but would not be able to fit in the title given they are two distinct parts. I want to argue specifically FIRST for the conditional statement is true by meaning. But some are confused at the use of "absolutes" and, if you read my comment to Veritas above, you'll see some additional points of clarity to that.

In order to follow, I need the meaning of the conditional to be understood, the parts (antecedent and consequence) included. You and I already interpret that you cannot argue for finite boundaries if we cannot know what is on the other side with certainty. So we agree on that. My accusation of you not 'agreeing' is about the lack of closure about what is NOT said and to the repeating of many of the questions that I thought we already established that undoes what I thought we agreed upon before.

As to whether Absolute Nothing exists is begging of the term 'exists' as it refers to time. But time is itself an object that needs questioning as well as the other things, like "things", or space. If reality needs no magical being, we have to question assuming 'force' and 'energy' themselves as also pre-existing. The Big Bang assumes ONLY 'energy' existing but disrespects the fact that the logical/mathematical meaning entails the concepts of mass, time, and space (distances), not to mention 'direction'. But many questions arise as to why the Steady State model has been rejected given it doesn't have the logical issues that the Big Bang does. The Steady State models reverse the assumption of particular favor that the 'singularity' references some finite real point. It also questions the assumption that there really was some time when all things in the total universe were "less than the size of an atom", contradictory to the very spirit of 'empiricism' it begs it is based upon. As such, I need to show that reality CAN come from Absolutely Nothing. But as a hint to help remove concern, Absolutely Nothing is indifferent to the continuum of relative nothings implicit to each and every point in space. The reason Absolute Nothing needs to be argued is to remove bias of a SPECIAL cause and to illustrate that if not special, then one of the remaining extremes are true about Totality, namely absolutely anything or nothing. Since Absolutely Everything should encompass Absolute Nothing, then ONLY Nothing is necessary.

I hope we can move forward. So to clarify, do you accept the meaning of Absolute Nothing, Origin, and the nature of 'contradiction' that ANY 'nothing' implies? That is, given you accept the condition, do the parts have 'meaning' conceptually to you AND did you get the point about Absolute Nothing as being expectedly contradictory as "inconsistent and consistent" simultaneously? I used the basic consistent laws of logic to argue that what is universally 'Inconsistent" implies that Totality is both "inconsistent" and "consistent" for it having no 'laws' it is bound to.

Take the conditional statement with more clarity, my position is:

If an 'origin' is true of Totality, then ONLY Absolutely Nothing can be this origin.

As to arguing whether totality itself can exist, I presume you understand the meaning of 'origin' as an unfortunate term that begs time; that 'existence' also begs time; and that 'things' or 'spacial distances' are also not required apriori as a foundation. The meaning of Absolute Nothing, as an 'origin', implies that the minimal necessity for anything at all to exist or to be 'derivable' REQUIRES absolutely nothing as both a nothing and a something. Concepts like "Something" and "Everything" cannot stand by themselves that "Nothing Can".

So IF "Something" exists, "Nothing" has to coexist; If "Everything" exists, then it includes "Nothing" by implication. Thus ONLY "nothing" can be singularly a solitary reality as a foundation to anything absolutely![A re-enstatement of my position above.]

Better?

[Scott Mayers]

Thanks for linking me to something that besides requiring access to the material (not its abstract), is homework you expect of me to prove that YOU are right and I am wrong! If you have an opinion, don't expect me to do the work to determine why you could be wrong.

Way to miss the point!

I have given you a logical system which rejects the axiom of identity. Whether that's "right" or "wrong" is entirely moot unless you can tell us how to assert the "rightness" or "wrongness" of any given logical system.

We can assert that individual inferences are "wrong' - if they violate the rules of the logical system, but that's also moot because "wrongness" is asserted within the system, not about the system.

So your entire framing of one of us being "wrong" and the other being "right" is fucked up. The problem is undecidable without a criterion for "wrongness".

YOU referred me to go to a link that was incompletely accessible. Thus besides not being able to actually read it, you are sending me away to a link you EXPECT proves or supports something you said. It doesn't unless you presume its existence alone sufficed for something you falsely assumed I don't get. I already KNOW that there are people who have argued against the standard set of laws. But my point is that those alternative founational laws that you think deny those rules cannot mean anything WITHOUT RESPECT to those laws. If those rules did not exist at all, then not even any other system of logic stands. That is if X = not-X, what the fuck does this mean other than an assignment that is 'contradictory'. Contradiction is defined in those three basic laws. If you want to assert that NOT (X = X), what are you saying? You cannot be meaning, not-X = not-X because this means the same fucking thing!

"Consistency" is DEFINED by the Law of Identity ....AND it DOES apply to reality. This isn't like an arbitrary game of Monopoly that has specific rules but speaks of ALL such possible ruled systems. Reality IS a system. And as such, it HAS to have some 'logical foundation' which implies that logic itself must be just as real.....if not MORE so.

You arguing the same way as one might be to say, "the model is NOT the reality", correct????

Well, newsflash!: The actual reality IS a perfect 'model' of itself. And unless you can demonstrate that these objects have NO consistency, they rely on those 'Laws of physics, which are apriori to the realities they manifest. If you attempt to argue that the reality is different than some 'logical structure', then how do you have such power to be able to do what I or others cannot do:.....penetrate the objects by BEING them? I mean, the perspectives we have due to our senses that give us the ability to infer anything at all ARE 'logical structures' given they are only the IMAGES of those things out there.

And, if you then try to presume your senses alone ARE the reality, then you've come full circle to recognize that the models here ARE all that we can say about reality, period.

Statements about logic describe logic. They don't describe reality.

It describes a rule of the logical system you proclaim to practice.

Not the foundational ones because they include the meaning of any other systems one can build upon them in 'defiance' of them. That is, you can create the 'denial' of the Law of Identity as its own law. But then you are just playing with alternative definitions of the meanings of the word, Identity to mean "not-Identity" by the traditional meaning. The "Law of Contradiction" is just a way to define non-Identity by contrast. The "Law of the Excluded Middle" just expresses that a consistent system (any logical system) requires "excluding" contradictions. These are as much definitions as they are assertions about reality. So you are absolutely wrong about logic as describing reality and you are wrong for assuming reality is independent of these descriptions. We can infer logic by generalizing patterns that become 'laws' by the meaning of 'identities' that we expect to be 'consistent'.

NOTE too, that these three laws are the foundation for Newton's own three laws! I'll let you think about this before attempting to explain. [I used Newton's laws (along with latter generalized version through Einstein) to show a direct LOGICAL comparison to the three "laws of logic"

ALL axioms are begging! That's why they are called axioms! They aren't to be questioned.

Those three "laws" of logic are more better to understand as 'defining logic', not 'axioms'. They are only 'axioms' when you cannot understand them and have to pretend they are true in order to move on. Like I said, those 'laws' are foundational to logic. Reality IS 'inconsistent at the level of Totality and what I am trying to express in this thread. If you have other logical systems based upon denying any one of those laws, they are just asserting some USE of mulivariables (rather than 'true' or 'false') and or, like the point I am making, that Totality as a whole LACKS a need for 'logic' at its inception, ...especially for an "absolute nothing". But you CAN argue FROM logic to show how Totality as a whole is 'inconsistent'. The Incompleteness thereoms are just these kind of proofs that use the laws of logic to show how nature ignores 'values' as a whole.

So I am not sure what beef you have with my arguments here. If you disagree with the foundations of logic, it will be difficult to prove anything to you because you would be starting from an "inconsistent" state. If disagree, so be it. It isn't going to do me any good to debate with someone who can't agree to stick with SOME system of reasonng. Sorry,...not Sorry!

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't use Anselm's particular definition. I used it to point out that HE 'equivocated' the secular concept of Totality by simply assigning the label, "God" to the logical class, "that which no greater can be conceived", and that without that 'transference' the concept is still rational.
If you have contention with permitting any label to my meaning of 'Totality', you are just begging that the meaning described has no meaning to you just because we cannot HAVE an actual 'objective' perspective...which completely dislodges your argument in favor of 'empiricism' when THAT is itself literally NOT possible given actual 'objects' (those things in themselves) are not even perceivably sharable from the same identical perspective.....unless you WERE some 'god'!!

"that which no greater can be conceived" is merely a thought.
The question is whether the above thought do have any possible real referent.
If it has a possible real referent, then it must be empirical possibility even if it is not yet known nor verified empirically.

If "that which no greater can be conceived" is a thing-in-itself, it is NOT an empirically possible thing. It is then merely a thought and thought-only without any empirical element. To reify such a thought into objective reality is merely an illusion.

Whatever is justified by reason without any empirical elements is merely a thought and not cannot be something real.

My point is whatever is claimed to be real or possible to be real, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

Where you refer to 'totality' to be real, it must be empirically possible, e.g. total number of marbles or any empirically-based things.
Any reasoned totality-in-itself empty of any empirical elements is merely a thought which cannot be real in the empirical-philosophical sense.

You are the one imposing belief about absolutes that raises concern: there is no such thing as 'morals' absolutely.
But it is nevertheless reasonable to assume a totality as an extension of what we experience IN PRINCIPLE absolutely without resorting to calling it 'good', as the reasoning Anselm transfered the meaning of 'God is good' to it.
I don't impose a subset of value to that whole. IF it requires value in any religious way, it would have to be 'absolutely evil' as an origin for similar reasons I argue for 'absolutely nothing' as an origin. [If something originates in absolute evil, then absolutely everthing else from that point on is relatively 'good' by that absolute.]

Btw, I do not believe the absolutely-absolute or perfect-absolute can be real. They are merely thoughts without any empirical possibility.

I did not claim there are moral absolutes that are absolutely-absolute.
What I have been claiming is whatever the moral facts, they must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

Yes, we can extend a 'totality' to what we experienced but if it has no empirical element, then that has only be a thought-only which is impossible to be real empirically.
Are you familiar with Russell's 'No Man's Land'?

• Russell stated what is from Science is the empirically-known which we can stand on solid.
  While standing on the empirically-known with one foot, we can extend one foot out to feel what is within the no-man's-land of the empirical unknown.
  But we cannot jump off with two feet away from the no-man's land to view the totality of all-there-is.
  This is like jumping off two feet into la la land, where Russell accused the theologians as doing to achieve a God-views of reality.
  Russell point is, we must always leveraged on the empirical and not be independent of it.

Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.
Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.
But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; and this No Man’s Land is philosophy.
Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. (p. xiii)

As an alternative, something I just pointed out in one of my prior post above to others, that you can interpret the meaning of "Totality" to be IMPLICITLY the concept of that which assumes no such thing as 'false' beyond itself. It is merely a label to refer to all that is true AND false under one container and/or its label. The meaning is sufficiently useful and still covers all other possible conventions.

That totality may be true to a qualified conditions [e.g. to theists only or your specific framework] but it is impossible be real in the empirical & philosophical sense.
I agree such label or thought can be useful but one must always be mindful, it is merely a thought-only but never anything solidly and empirically real.

For example the idea of a perfect absolute God is a thought-only but such a thought has been very useful to the majority of people to deal with their existential crisis.
However, theists cannot claim that God to be real or possible to be real to the extent that their God will listen and answer to their prayers. Or their God is so real with a promise of salvation that will be obey God's command to kill non-believers to gain merits to salvation.

You are wrong about the empirical point of Totatlity as existing: all it takes is ONE thing to exist to provide meaning to Totality. It is itself 'incomplete' with respect to assuming time as a feature of "existence". I have chosen the term 'origin' but this can be the non-existent (without time) concept that is apriori to anything else. It is like defining matter as "that which occupies space", where space itself is absolutely necessary FOR matter to exist prior to any time considerations.

I stated, it is possible for a totality that is related to the empirical, i.e. from the totality of the numbers of marbles in a container to the totality of stars in the universe, but never the perfect-absolute totality-in-itself and which has no essential relation the empirical.

I would have no issue if you claim whatever totality-in-itself is merely a thought and restricted to thoughts only but not to real empirical things.

Re the empirical Kant did introduce the idea of the noumenon to correspond with empirical-phenomenon.
Whilst the noumenon is related to the empirical, it is merely a thought-only but never a real empirical thing.

The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.

At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility {the empirical}.
B311

From the above Kant assert the noumenon as a correspondent to the empirical phenomenon is only to be used a limiting concept, thus of negative employment, thus not a real empirical.
If considered beyond the sensibility [empirical] it is not a positive thing/object at all.

As such the noumenon aka the thing-in-itself is merely confined as a thought-only.

The point is due to the existential crisis, most people have this tendency to reify what is supposed to be a thought-only as an objective-reality [empirical] in such case, they are merely hallucinating an illusion due to psychological forces.

I believe your drive for 'totality' in the above sense is due to some very minor degree of the psychological forces pulsing unconsciously due to the existential crisis.
You can try to do some investigating and research from this angle?

This was what Kant did with his Copernican Revolution, so did the Buddha and others.

Okay, on the last point first, you think that this is something merely 'pychological'. You are questioning motive here. And while I am certain to have one, I assure you it isn't any more absurd than your search for 'moral' absolutes.'

I believe you did a very quick read of my post, thus missing the relevant points.

Note I wrote above;

• I did not claim there are moral absolutes that are absolutely-absolute.
  What I have been claiming is whatever the moral facts, they must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

I don't' need any more of a motive than to seek to find a universal foundation that can tie physics to a distinct logic.
I already know that Russell and most others would frown upon my extension of his type of effort.

To me, science cannot mean anything WITHOUT a logical foundation behind it, of which it does not, to me where it strictly presumes all logics as a tool that is itself unreal. If you try to build a house with an imaginary hammer, this lacks foundational reasoning for me. It is falsely presumed that 'science' is ALL that is sound when this is at BEST what EACH of us can percieve in absolute isolation to other people.

As such, logic is the mechanism that HAS to operate as the foundation to physical reality, not the convening members voting on whether everyone invited in the institution agrees to the observations and the laws based ONLY upon them.

That generic psychological motive in all humans I referred to is very subliminal and thus unconscious.
This is the motive that drove the majority of people to theism and to seek an ultimate origin i.e. 'absolutely-nothing' in your [& those of the likes] case. Others are driven to seek other ways and approaches as a consonance to deal with the unavoidable dissonance
inherent in ALL humans.

Science is not dependent of the strongest logic, i.e. deductive, but rather a weaker logic, i.e. induction to be the most credible source of objective truths and 'facts'.
As I had stated, scientific truths while being the most credible are at best 'polished conjectures'.
Science is most trustworthy based on its promised of repeatability which any one can test and that its knowledge do contribute [mindful of its negative] to the well being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.

Logic is at best a guiding tool but not imperative in all cases.

Science is based uniquely on what only an individual can observe and relay to other individuals about what they CLAIM to observe, whether they agree to the descriptions, and to attempt at GUESSING what the underlying logic of physical reality is.
Science, even on an INDIVIDUAL basis (and especially necessary for agreement), uses only observations as a postulated reality. It is certainty unpostulated for the individual perceiver but NOT when sharing it with the very environment it is questioning. Other people are as equally suspect to the meaning of 'observation' about objects.
My point here is that 'science' is an institutional politic that is limited to speaking about things they convene on regarding what physical reality is about but NOT so privileged to speak on the logic of the physical laws themselves. Those 'laws' are just generalizations postulated about what they learn through observations. But most of the scientists out there are still of the opinion that logic itself -- that defines what 'laws' are -- are not to be spoken of or is 'ineffible' to their domain. THAT is the empiricist limitation.

Note my point re Science above, i.e. Science objective is not chasing after absolute truths, since by default it conditioned whatever truths it generate.
Thus the empirical limitations and all other limitations are already factored into whatever the scientific truths and users should be aware of these limitations when they rely upon scientific knowledge.

Despite its inherent limitations, Science is the most credible source of knowledge and thus the standard bearer of truths of reality at present. Besides mathematics which is merely a tool like logic, what else is more reliable and credible in representing the truths of reality?

When you expect that I'd have to present to you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, I can. And if you think I can't, then you've proven me correct. In fact, I'd be more doubtful to someone who might assert they can 'observe' directly this 'absolute nothing!
But you CAN infer indirectly what this is.
But I KNOW that you, like others, are biased to default assuming TIME as the measure that is needed to exist as a 'source'. We are trapped to using words like 'exist' if only to be taken serious at all, though. That is, I have no word that I am able to use to express the reality of "absolutely nothing" that is acceptable to the concept of an 'origin'. The logicians of the past realized this and so came up with, apriori, only for later generations to again place 'time' in its meaning given it has the root, 'prior' in it. You cannot win. If I make up a word, like "ukko", this won't help either. I am forced to use words that we all relate to.

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

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

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

I also presented and clarified to you and others here that the first part of even trying to prove myself here is to demonstrate that the logical CONDITIONAL is true, not that an absolute nothing or origin exists.
That is, if there IS any 'origin' (whether it be of time or not) to Totality, then the ONLY logical possiblity is for it to be absolutely nothing.
And if THIS cannot even be agreed on, you default to assuming Totality in religious terms because you not only imply that absolutely ALL things are NOT possible in Totality (because you at least exclude Absolutely Nothing) but that some SPECIAL number of things in between Absoulute Nothing and Absolutely Everything has to be the case without 'empirical' proof of EXCLUSION to those extremes. On merely logical grounds, if Absolutely Somthing is all that you can assert for merely having the capacity to 'observe' at all, you cannot assert any specific disproof of this nor of any of the other 'absolutes'.

As I had stated, you missed my point above;

• VA: I would have no issue if you claim whatever totality-in-itself is merely a thought and restricted to thoughts only but not to real empirical things.

Btw, even Science makes such an ASSUMPTION that there is something of final objective reality that it trying to discover whilst its process can only verify and justify merely an approximation of that final objective reality.
But note this is only an assumption.

If you claim your absolute-nothing is an assumption, I would understand but not necessary agree.

Even Kant made such a provision of an assumption [.I have quoted this before];

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely,
that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves,
we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [.B xxvi]

To Kant, one can only 'THINK' as assume 'things-in-themselves' e.g. thing-in-itself or nothing-in-itself but we cannot insist what is assumed are real things.

I ask you to question how ANY 'laws' of physics exists? Do you postulate the "laws of logic"? Given they are 'laws' too, whether you agree to them or not, what is any 'law' mean without the very 'law of identity' that begs it?

Note sure of your point.
According to Kant, whatever laws of nature, humans are the ones who contribute to these laws. There are no laws-in-themselves.
Obviously Kant has his argument to support the above claim.

The 'Absolute Nothing' you have in mind is not feasible because you expect it UNABLE TO CAUSE! This is your bias, not mine. "Cause" happens to be another word that begs time too, which doesn't help. The logicians, like our friend Bertrand Russell, helped contribute to clarifying this issue and offered up, "implication", for this reason, rather than the traditional, "if/then" type statements. But it has the same problem when one might say, "Nothing exists implies no thing exists". Even if you granted, "Nothing implies no thing", it still begs 'thing' as a word that lacks precision and comes across as though it is just speaking about the term. We are trapped to communicate the underlying metaphysics of reality because we are physical.

Nope I am not expecting any first cause to cause, I have no thought and inference of 'absolute-nothing' within reality. You are the one who infer introduce 'absolute-noting'.

As with Science I am working top down from the very obvious empirical evidences and subject them to a rigorless and vigorous verifying and justification down to the most reliable and credible point and no further.
Where I can go no further, I'd taken Wittgenstein's advice to literally 'shut up.'

As I had asked above, what utility can you get from insisting there is an origin of 'absolute-nothing' other than inviting critique from the rationalist-empiricists.
Your [& others] ground to zoom into an ultimate is subliminal psychology

I gave up fighting to get "science" to include the philosophical foundations it owes allegiance to. To not accept this, I just get locked out of discussions on the formal 'science' groups for not being 'empirical' enough for them. So I am forced to stick with philosophy forums to discuss this under the banner of 'metaphysics', which also has its baggage by many who thinks this means the same as those proposing a means to create horoscopes. So, we are HERE where I am NOT going to argue with you about whether it can be proven, "empirical", because to me, this term is itself a politic. [It actually relates directly to "empires" and "imperialism"....of Kings and Queens who dictate from some throne of superiority we are expected to NOT question. The belief is that the senses of something, the 'observations', are themselves absolute-absolutes as though they speak for themselves AND are 'objective', without recognizing that no such universal 'observing' vantage point exists without some 'God's Eye' to see.]

Actually Science is philosophical when it make the ASSUMPTION there is an objective reality to the inferred scientific truths.
It has to assume there is a final reality, otherwise what is its polished conjectures conjecturing about?

So, to close, tell me if you agree to the conditional statement, not the antecedent's nor the consequent's mapping to reality.
This should NOT be a problem unless you (or others here) are missing something about what logical implication (conditions) mean.
I DO believe that the "Absolute Nothing" is apriori or what you might say, ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. But I need at least to argue in stages that I can at least find agreement on here. That is, stop telling me that the implication is itself nonsensical given the parts it is arguing have meaning to you. [If they lacked meaning, you couldn't even say whether it is even possible or not.]

I will understand if what is conditional to you is merely an assumption and not insisting it is something real. It is at best a thought-only without any possible real referent.

As Kant had stated, what is assumed is conditionally necessary for discussion sake, i.e. repeat,

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely,
that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves,
we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [.B xxvi]

Kant had other uses for that assumption, but that is out of topic.

[Age]

...

I never asserted an 'origin' itself is certain, only that IF an origin exists, then it would REQUIRE to be abolutely nothing itself.

IF you had added the word 'IF' in the thread title, then this would make what you are claiming MORE CLEAR.



And I could say that YOU NEED to do some 'things'. But I do NOT do this.

IF, however, you wrote what you ACTUALLY MEANT, then so MANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS would NOT be NEEDED.

By the way, MAYBE I ALREADY KNOW what, so called, "conditionals" ARE.

But to speed the process UP SOMEWHAT, IF you wrote IF in YOUR thread title, then you would NOT 'have to' write 'conditionals'.

IN FACT, IF you wrote what you ACTUALLY MEANT the first time, then there would be NO NEED to add 'conditionals'.

For example, IF you wrote:
IF there was an 'origin' to Everything, then I have proof that Absolutely Nothing absolute exists as an origin.

Then you would have made it VERY CLEAR that you are NOT saying; Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an origin.

The latter appears to be making the claim that there was an origin.

I actually DO have MORE to say beyond the conditional and why I opted for that title. It may have been written better but would not be able to fit in the title given they are two distinct parts.

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

I want to argue specifically FIRST for the conditional statement is true by meaning.

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

Which, REALLY, is what I was getting at, in a VERY DRAWN OUT CLARIFYING QUESTIONING WAY. As I noted earlier, what I just wrote previously; provided MORE ACTUAL PROOF for what you are CLAIMING here than what you have ACTUALLY SHOWN so far.

What you want to, OBVIOUSLY, argue for IS:
There was, and 'had to be', an 'origin', and at that 'origin' 'Absolutely Nothing' (capitalized] absolutely exists/existed.

Now feel FREE to 'try to' argue for this. BUT, be forewarned, this 'theory' has ALREADY LOGICALLY BEEN PROVEN False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.

But some are confused at the use of "absolutes" and, if you read my comment to Veritas above, you'll see some additional points of clarity to that.

IF your use of the word 'absolute/s' does not conflict nor contradict with what you claim is true, then there will be no confusion, from me anyway. However, whether what you claim is true or not is a completely other matter. So, do not let 'absolutes' concern 'you', in regards to 'me' anyway.

But this is the WHOLE ISSUE with writings our own thoughts down, that is; How do we write them down so that they do NOT cause CONFUSION in ANY "other" completely differently thinking human being?

In order to follow, I need the meaning of the conditional to be understood, the parts (antecedent and consequence) included. You and I already interpret that you cannot argue for finite boundaries if we cannot know what is on the other side with certainty.

But 'I' CERTAINLY do NOT 'interpret' this AT ALL.

What 'I' 'interpret' is IF ANY one says there is supposedly a 'boundary', then I just question them about; What is on the other side of that boundary?


I ask them this because from what I have observed, so far, there HAS TO BE some 'thing' on the other side.

So, it is NOT a matter of knowing, or not knowing, what is on the other side, the fact is because I do KNOW EXACTLY what is on the other side that I then CHOOSE to NOT argue for finite boundaries. Because, to me, to do so would be absurd AND ridiculous. So, it is not that I "cannot" argue for finite boundaries, because ANY one "can" argue for ANY thing, or more correctly, 'try to' argue for ANY thing. The Truth is, from what I have observed so far, EVERY thing is SHOWING me just how a boundless Universe ACTUALLY EXISTS.

If, however, ANY can come up with a sound and valid argument that a finite boundary can and/or does exist, then I am all well and good with that. I, for one, would LOVE to see that argument. Just as I would LOVE to see a sound and valid argument that there is NO finite boundary. Until either one is created AND shared I will just wait, patiently.

So we agree on that.

I suggest that you CLARIFY with "another" FIRST, BEFORE you say you agree with them.

My accusation of you not 'agreeing' is about the lack of closure about what is NOT said and to the repeating of many of the questions that I thought we already established that undoes what I thought we agreed upon before.

A LOT OF 'thinking' going on here. Again, I suggest just CLARIFYING, and 'KNOWING', before 'thinking', 'wondering' 'assuming' and 'guessing'.

As to whether Absolute Nothing exists is begging of the term 'exists' as it refers to time.

This is from YOUR point of view and from YOUR perspective.

From MY point of view and from MY perspective 'Absolutely Nothing' DOES EXIST in 'places'. In fact, these 'places' of Absolutely Nothing' 'HAS TO' EXIST. This is because thee One and ONLY Universe can ONLY 'exist' in One eternal AND infinite way, which is in the way thee Universe is in right HERE-NOW. However, and as you already well know, explaining ones own point of view, from their OWN perspective, so that "others" can and will FULLY UNDERSTAND takes quite a bit of time to learn how to explain FULLY.

Just as you are having 'trouble' explaining some words, so that they are FULLY UNDERSTOOD by "others", we can ALL share in this 'dilemma'. This is because we ALL define and use words in different ways.

See, to me, there is NO such 'thing' has 'time', other than a human behavior, so whether the term 'exists' as it refers to 'time' is a complete and utter misnomer, to me.

But time is itself an object that needs questioning as well as the other things, like "things", or space. If reality needs no magical being, we have to question assuming 'force' and 'energy' themselves as also pre-existing.

But 'time', itself, is an object, is YOUR view, and NOT necessarily True at all.

I agree that 'time' NEEDS questioning as well as 'things', 'space', AND even 'reality', itself.

If, as you say, 'reality' NEEDS NO 'magical being', then it could well be also said that ABSOLUTELY NO 'thing' NEEDS a 'magical being'. In fact the word 'magical' automatically implies or even infers that NO such 'being' is NEEDED anywhere at all.

Also, if 'you' HAVE TO question ASSUMING 'force' and 'energy' themselves as also pre-existing, then this would only be because you are ASSUMING that there was an 'origin', is 'time', and/or a 'pre-existence'. Which, to me, are ALL completely unnecessary ASSUMPTIONS. Especially considering what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

The Big Bang assumes ONLY 'energy' existing but disrespects the fact that the logical/mathematical meaning entails the concepts of mass, time, and space (distances), not to mention 'direction'.

1. 'Bangs', 'big bangs', and/or 'the big bang' do NOT 'assume' absolutely ANY thing. ONLY human beings 'assume' 'things'.

2. So, who 'assumes' ONLY 'energy' existing when there was, supposedly and allegedly, what is called 'a big bang'.

But many questions arise as to why the Steady State model has been rejected given it doesn't have the logical issues that the Big Bang does.

Who has rejected the steady state model?

OBVIOUSLY ALL "models" are WRONG in some way. So, I question WHY they have NOT ALL been rejected YET, in the days of when this is being written.

The Steady State models reverse the assumption of particular favor that the 'singularity' references some finite real point. It also questions the assumption that there really was some time when all things in the total universe were "less than the size of an atom", contradictory to the very spirit of 'empiricism' it begs it is based upon. As such, I need to show that reality CAN come from Absolutely Nothing.

Why do 'you' FEEL the 'need' to show such a thing as this?

Also, IF you can REALLY show that 'reality' CAN come from Absolutely Nothing, then WHY NOT just SHOW 'it'?

But as a hint to help remove concern, Absolutely Nothing is indifferent to the continuum of relative nothings implicit to each and every point in space.

The words, "Absolutely Nothing" [capitalized] just means that there is Absolutely Nothing, correct?

The reason Absolute Nothing needs to be argued is to remove bias of a SPECIAL cause and to illustrate that if not special, then one of the remaining extremes are true about Totality, namely absolutely anything or nothing. Since Absolutely Everything should encompass Absolute Nothing, then ONLY Nothing is necessary.

I get completely LOST here.

WHY does 'Absolute Nothing' NEED to be argued?

To me, if some thing NEEDS to be argued, then that is True sign that 'it' is NOT EVEN WORTH arguing about.

To me, Absolutely Everything DOES encompass Absolute Nothing, in spaces. But I am NOT sure how this, somehow, concludes; then ONLY Nothing is necessary.

'Necessary' for 'what', EXACTLY?

Either some thing is True or it is NOT.

I hope we can move forward.

We CAN ALWAYS move forward. But the word 'forward' is a very RELATIVE word. And, what 'you' perceive as 'moving forward' might not be what I perceive as 'moving forward', at all.

I perceive 'moving forward' as meaning coming together peacefully, and then through logical reasoning discovering what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, and continually doing this until human beings have evolved into living together as One, in Peace and in Harmony.

What does 'move/moving forward' mean, to 'you'?

So to clarify, do you accept the meaning of Absolute Nothing, Origin, and the nature of 'contradiction' that ANY 'nothing' implies?

I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what 'Absolute Nothing', 'Origin', and 'the nature of 'contradiction' that ANY 'nothing' implies' ACTUALLY MEANS, to 'you', and until you are forthcoming with this information, I can NOT 'accept' 'the meaning', which I am NOT YET AWARE OF.

So, IF you provide the meaning of these three 'things', to you, in a VERY CLEAR and SUCCINCT definition, then I will SEE if I accept those meanings.

That is, given you accept the condition, do the parts have 'meaning' conceptually to you AND did you get the point about Absolute Nothing as being expectedly contradictory as "inconsistent and consistent" simultaneously?

I accept that IF there is an 'Origin' [capitalized], THEN 'you' have a theory that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists, which 'you' appear to BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY True.

I do NOT know what the 'parts' ARE, in relation to; "Do the parts have 'meaning' conceptually to you"? So, I do not understand what this question is in relation to EXACTLY.

And, tell me if I am WRONG here, but the point about 'Absolute Nothing' as being expected to be contradictory as "inconsistent and consistent" simultaneously, is because this would be the only way you could describe how Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an 'Origin'. Is this correct?

By the way, was that "expectedly" word meant to be "expectedly" or "unexpectedly"? To me, what you are saying here would be more "unexpected" instead of being "expected".

Also, I think I understand that IF you are 'trying to' say that Absolutely Everything IF began with a big bang, or BEGAN in any other way, then what was the 'Origin', prior to that beginning, would 'have to be' Absolutely Nothing, which is just what Totality [Absolutely Everything] would 'have to' encompass anyway.

IF I am understanding this correctly, then this all makes PERFECT SENSE.

But this is ONLY on the CONDITION that there was an 'Origin' and a 'beginning', which, to me, does NOT make ANY sense at all. This is because NO one has logically explained just HOW Absolutely Any 'thing' COULD come from Absolutely Nothing, let alone explained just HOW this DID actually occur.

I used the basic consistent laws of logic to argue that what is universally 'Inconsistent" implies that Totality is both "inconsistent" and "consistent" for it having no 'laws' it is bound to.

If you think or believe that you have used "the basic consistent laws of logic", then, if 'I' was 'you', do not be to surprised if some others do disagree with 'you'.

Also, WITHOUT defining YOUR 'words', then what is SEEN is that you have NOT actually argued ANY THING here YET.

Take the conditional statement with more clarity, my position is:

If an 'origin' is true of Totality, then ONLY Absolutely Nothing can be this origin.

But IF Totality encompasses Absolutely Nothing, THEN there is NO 'origin'.

If you Truly want what you are 'trying to' say here to be COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD, then I suggest defining, as simply as you can, the words;

'Totality'.
'Origin'.
'Time'.
'Existence'.
'Things'.
'Reality'.
'Spacial distances'.
'Absolutely Nothing'.
'Absolutely Anything'. And,
'Absolutely Everything'.

As to arguing whether totality itself can exist, I presume you understand the meaning of 'origin' as an unfortunate term that begs time; that 'existence' also begs time; and that 'things' or 'spacial distances' are also not required apriori as a foundation. The meaning of Absolute Nothing, as an 'origin', implies that the minimal necessity for anything at all to exist or to be 'derivable' REQUIRES absolutely nothing as both a nothing and a something. Concepts like "Something" and "Everything" cannot stand by themselves that "Nothing Can".

You have LOST me again here.

So IF "Something" exists, "Nothing" has to coexist;

AGREE, wholeheartedly.

If "Everything" exists, then it includes "Nothing" by implication.

The word 'Everything' HAS TO entail, include, or comprise of, the word 'nothing'. This is a GIVEN.

Thus ONLY "nothing" can be singularly a solitary reality as a foundation to anything absolutely![A re-enstatement of my position above.]

Better?

Not at all.

WHY can "nothing", supposedly, ONLY be singularly a solitary reality as a foundation to anything?

[Skepdick]

YOU referred me to go to a link that was incompletely accessible. Thus besides not being able to actually read it, you are sending me away to a link you EXPECT proves or supports something you said.

Seriously, snowflake. You live in 2020.

You have Google Scholar and Sci-Hub.

The attachment (PDF) Schrödinger logics. 2020-12-16 15-48-40.png is no longer available

(PDF) Schrödinger logics. 2020-12-16 15-48-40.png (30.21 KiB) Viewed 1794 times

doi.png (39.74 KiB) Viewed 1794 times

[Skepdick]

"Consistency" is DEFINED by the Law of Identity ....AND it DOES apply to reality.

No, it doesn't.

It's simply a rule in the formal system. It's ABOUT the formal system. It says nothing about "reality".

This isn't like an arbitrary game of Monopoly that has specific rules but speaks of ALL such possible ruled systems. Reality IS a system.

The statement "Reality IS a system" is about establishing a frame of reference. You are proposing that we use the LANGUAGE of systems theory to TALK about reality.

And as such, it HAS to have some 'logical foundation' which implies that logic itself must be just as real.....if not MORE so.

Reality owes us nothing, not even being "logical". The religion of Logicism prefers to overlook this possibility.

You arguing the same way as one might be to say, "the model is NOT the reality", correct????

Not even that! My argument is that the model is the model. And that's all that it is!

Whether a given model is applicable to real-life situations is a matter of pragmatic choice.

Well, newsflash!: The actual reality IS a perfect 'model' of itself.

No, it isn't. The word model inherently implies "simplification".

And unless you can demonstrate that these objects have NO consistency

How do I demonstrate "consistency" to you?

Even Plato recognised that "consistency" is meaningless notion in a mutable world.

It's an axiom of Logic, but it says fuckall about reality.

If you attempt to argue that the reality is different than some 'logical structure', then how do you have such power to be able to do what I or others cannot do

Au contraire! If you insist that any particular linguistic description corresponds with reality, please go ahead and point out the mechanism by which you've established this "correspondence".

Please explain where you've found such powers so as to have solved the symbol-grounding problem.

And, if you then try to presume your senses alone ARE the reality, then you've come full circle to recognize that the models here ARE all that we can say about reality, period.

Which is to say that you are not saying anything about reality. Ever.

You are saying things about your models of reality.

Not the foundational ones...

There are no foundations. Except the ones you have arbitrarily chosen.

because they include the meaning of any other systems one can build upon them in 'defiance' of them. That is, you can create the 'denial' of the Law of Identity as its own law. But then you are just playing with alternative definitions of the meanings of the word, Identity to mean "not-Identity" by the traditional meaning.

Words don't have any meaning, other than the meaning one projects onto them. They are just symbols.

A symbol can have many different meaning within the same formal system. The "law" of identity collapses under polymorphism.

The "Law of Contradiction" is just a way to define non-Identity by contrast.

The "Law of the Excluded Middle" just expresses that a consistent system (any logical system) requires "excluding" contradictions.

Constructivists logics reject this axiom.

These are as much definitions as they are assertions about reality.

Then I guess I reject your reality. And I substitute my own.

In my reality none of your axioms hold.

So you are absolutely wrong about logic as describing reality and you are wrong for assuming reality is independent of these descriptions. We can infer logic by generalizing patterns that become 'laws' by the meaning of 'identities' that we expect to be 'consistent'.

In what logical system have you induced my "wrongness"? I'd like to see your decision procedure.

NOTE too, that these three laws are the foundation for Newton's own three laws! I'll let you think about this before attempting to explain. [I used Newton's laws (along with latter generalized version through Einstein) to show a direct LOGICAL comparison to the three "laws of logic"

You keep calling them laws and we keep violating them. You are diluting the meaning of the word "law" with your idiocy.

Those three "laws" of logic are more better to understand as 'defining logic', not 'axioms'.

Those three axioms define ONLY Classical Logic. They don't define Constructive, Liear or Quantum logic.

But I said that already. Different axiom-sets maketh a different logical system.

They are only 'axioms' when you cannot understand them and have to pretend they are true in order to move on. Like I said, those 'laws' are foundational to logic.

They are not foundational to logic. They are ONLY foundational to Classical Logic.

There are other kinds of logics out there.

Totality as a whole LACKS a need for 'logic' at its inception

Which is precisely why I said that Logic is not about reality. It's only about epistemology.

...especially for an "absolute nothing". But you CAN argue FROM logic to show how Totality as a whole is 'inconsistent'. The Incompleteness thereoms are just these kind of proofs that use the laws of logic to show how nature ignores 'values' as a whole.

The incompleteness theorems are about the incompleteness of formal systems. The implication of those theorems are epistemic. Nothing to do with reality.

So I am not sure what beef you have with my arguments here. If you disagree with the foundations of logic, it will be difficult to prove anything to you because you would be starting from an "inconsistent" state.

This sentence is incoherent. PROOF is reserved for Mathematics. You can. PROVE identities. You can PROVE reductions of formal expressions.

The entire business of PROVING things to each other is some Philosophical idiocy.

If disagree, so be it. It isn't going to do me any good to debate with someone who can't agree to stick with SOME system of reasonng. Sorry,...not Sorry!

Since every single system of reasoning has edge/corner cases and a distinct domain of applicability, I find it decidedly idiotic to stick to any particular one.

[Scott Mayers]

...
Okay, on the last point first, you think that this is something merely 'pychological'. You are questioning motive here. And while I am certain to have one, I assure you it isn't any more absurd than your search for 'moral' absolutes.'

I believe you did a very quick read of my post, thus missing the relevant points.

Note I wrote above;

• I did not claim there are moral absolutes that are absolutely-absolute.
  What I have been claiming is whatever the moral facts, they must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

No. I read it through and note that you are just repeating yourself from what I've already learned from you in other threads: that you think there is SOME 'absolute' to morals or morality. In the quote of mine you responded to this above only asserted you sought moral absolutes. I don't think morals can be 'scientifically' proven to mean anything outside of POLITICAL philosophy. They are merely 'rules of conduct' that one or more people opt to abide by that are either self-derived, imposed from others, or negotiated as a means to optimize someone's selfish favor. Before I suggested to you that this CAN be rational only if you recognize your search is for "conditionals", such as

"IF (behavior X occurs), THEN (Let X be 'good'/'bad')"
"IF (one then does X), THEN (Let us do Y as a consequence we set upon our society)

You, to me, are presuming some universal unique behaviors exist for humans that optmize some degree of comfort. But there is no such functioning universal rules of conduct that are themselves satisfactory to ALL people. Thus, given you denied the conditional point before AND the nature of it being a 'politic' (a construct negotiated or enforced among people BY one or more persons), I interpret this to mean that you believe at least in some local (relative) form of universal (absolute). Thus, I interpret your search for morals itself is 'religious-like' AND, as you oddly accuse me of, due to some psychological issue you have in mind [...such as a fear of what it might mean should no morals be provable in principle to exist beyond political or social-psychological interactions.]

So....

I don't' need any more of a motive than to seek to find a universal foundation that can tie physics to a distinct logic.
I already know that Russell and most others would frown upon my extension of his type of effort.

To me, science cannot mean anything WITHOUT a logical foundation behind it, of which it does not, to me where it strictly presumes all logics as a tool that is itself unreal. If you try to build a house with an imaginary hammer, this lacks foundational reasoning for me. It is falsely presumed that 'science' is ALL that is sound when this is at BEST what EACH of us can percieve in absolute isolation to other people.

As such, logic is the mechanism that HAS to operate as the foundation to physical reality, not the convening members voting on whether everyone invited in the institution agrees to the observations and the laws based ONLY upon them.

That generic psychological motive in all humans I referred to is very subliminal and thus unconscious.
This is the motive that drove the majority of people to theism and to seek an ultimate origin i.e. 'absolutely-nothing' in your [& those of the likes] case. Others are driven to seek other ways and approaches as a consonance to deal with the unavoidable dissonance
inherent in ALL humans.

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

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

Science is not dependent of the strongest logic, i.e. deductive, but rather a weaker logic, i.e. induction to be the most credible source of objective truths and 'facts'.
As I had stated, scientific truths while being the most credible are at best 'polished conjectures'.
Science is most trustworthy based on its promised of repeatability which any one can test and that its knowledge do contribute [mindful of its negative] to the well being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.

Logic is at best a guiding tool but not imperative in all cases.

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

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

Science is based uniquely on what only an individual can observe and relay to other individuals about what they CLAIM to observe, whether they agree to the descriptions, and to attempt at GUESSING what the underlying logic of physical reality is.
Science, even on an INDIVIDUAL basis (and especially necessary for agreement), uses only observations as a postulated reality. It is certainty unpostulated for the individual perceiver but NOT when sharing it with the very environment it is questioning. Other people are as equally suspect to the meaning of 'observation' about objects.
My point here is that 'science' is an institutional politic that is limited to speaking about things they convene on regarding what physical reality is about but NOT so privileged to speak on the logic of the physical laws themselves. Those 'laws' are just generalizations postulated about what they learn through observations. But most of the scientists out there are still of the opinion that logic itself -- that defines what 'laws' are -- are not to be spoken of or is 'ineffible' to their domain. THAT is the empiricist limitation.

Note my point re Science above, i.e. Science objective is not chasing after absolute truths, since by default it conditioned whatever truths it generate.
Thus the empirical limitations and all other limitations are already factored into whatever the scientific truths and users should be aware of these limitations when they rely upon scientific knowledge.

Despite its inherent limitations, Science is the most credible source of knowledge and thus the standard bearer of truths of reality at present. Besides mathematics which is merely a tool like logic, what else is more reliable and credible in representing the truths of reality?

All math IS a subset of logic, not merely a 'likeness'. My only mention of it here was to assert that I believe that you CAN discover a mechanism for absolutes or universal facts of nature. Obviously Nature itself has this 'knowledge' and it doesn't even require a brain! So I am arguing that the logic I present here on Absolute Nothing is foundationally and absolutely true regardless of whether I can satisfactorily 'prove' this to you or others. Nature IS a 'mechanism' that creates us without a need for anything at all,....absolutely nothing at all. While you bet that the original thinkers of these concepts had passed on thought that some have evolved into a part of their religion, like defining 'Totality' as something universallly 'good' (ie, "God'), my motives here are most non-religious: I do not believe in 'values' that are universal moral values as assignments of 'good' or 'bad' to things. [... and thus my reason for bringing up your views in contrast here.]

When you expect that I'd have to present to you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, I can. And if you think I can't, then you've proven me correct. In fact, I'd be more doubtful to someone who might assert they can 'observe' directly this 'absolute nothing!
But you CAN infer indirectly what this is.
But I KNOW that you, like others, are biased to default assuming TIME as the measure that is needed to exist as a 'source'. We are trapped to using words like 'exist' if only to be taken serious at all, though. That is, I have no word that I am able to use to express the reality of "absolutely nothing" that is acceptable to the concept of an 'origin'. The logicians of the past realized this and so came up with, apriori, only for later generations to again place 'time' in its meaning given it has the root, 'prior' in it. You cannot win. If I make up a word, like "ukko", this won't help either. I am forced to use words that we all relate to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also presented and clarified to you and others here that the first part of even trying to prove myself here is to demonstrate that the logical CONDITIONAL is true, not that an absolute nothing or origin exists.
That is, if there IS any 'origin' (whether it be of time or not) to Totality, then the ONLY logical possiblity is for it to be absolutely nothing.
And if THIS cannot even be agreed on, you default to assuming Totality in religious terms because you not only imply that absolutely ALL things are NOT possible in Totality (because you at least exclude Absolutely Nothing) but that some SPECIAL number of things in between Absoulute Nothing and Absolutely Everything has to be the case without 'empirical' proof of EXCLUSION to those extremes. On merely logical grounds, if Absolutely Somthing is all that you can assert for merely having the capacity to 'observe' at all, you cannot assert any specific disproof of this nor of any of the other 'absolutes'.

As I had stated, you missed my point above;

• VA: I would have no issue if you claim whatever totality-in-itself is merely a thought and restricted to thoughts only but not to real empirical things.

Btw, even Science makes such an ASSUMPTION that there is something of final objective reality that it trying to discover whilst its process can only verify and justify merely an approximation of that final objective reality.
But note this is only an assumption.

If you claim your absolute-nothing is an assumption, I would understand but not necessary agree.

THEN you at least agree to the conditional statement. And given some of what I just mentioned about regarding my reasoning that an Absolute Nothing MUST exist must respect the meaning without placing time, space, or energy there. Do you agree that each 'point' in space-time is a "relative nothing"? If so, then the collection of all 'relative nothings' covers all of space and all that is in its domain. The heading of the set of all 'relative nothings' is the set as a whole, to which you can label, "Absolute Nothing" as its class container.

Now given this still 'feels' non-empirical to you, I can then move on to discussing why it IS 'empirical' nevertheless.

Logic is the symbolic representation of reality when WE do it. But this is the 'tool' we are forced to use regardless that assigns reference pointers (symbols) about the realities we are referencing [those 'things-in-themselves]. Logic, as the "mechanism" or "machine" of Nature still exists even though it directly deals with the particular realities rather than symbols. Again, we are stuck with words that have associations to our actions. But we DISCOVER logic, even if we can also create them. Nature has some mechanism or 'reasoning' that enables us to exist as conscious beings that observe. Without the mechanisms, we either had to exist eternally (and should be able to prove this with 'empiricism') or we are 'born' as a subset of Totality based upon the physics involving time, space, and energy most specifically true of our own Universe.

Given our perception of the objects outide of our consciousness are at BEST, symbolic representations of reality, then we are still forced to accept that the patterns we perceive about reality are as ephemoral constructs that you can argue reasonably are as fallible as the "logic" that deals with ONLY symbols. Thus, we have no distinction between interpreting ANYTHING 'real' as symbolic or non-symbolic. Thus one's mere capacity to 'observe' at all have to be based on a 'logic of Nature' (the mechanisms of it) that also is based on enabling the reality of symbols themselves as 'real objects'.

Now "science" itself is just the collective opinions of other 'objects' (ie people) out there to which you gamble via the symbolic representation of the senses to exist and 'appear' as agreeing or not with your own opinion. To trust that any environmental perception you have is certainly 'more real' than the symbolic representation is flawed for being hypocritically applied to what YOU directly have concerns with in your life as "that which matters to you only." This to me is just the psychological role of emotions that drive us to exist selfishly. The point here is that we literally define matter itself based solely on what matters to us. What is 'real' is the illusion of consciousness that is itself indeterminate to know except as 'symbols'.

For example, what I learn about things we call, 'solids', as existing reality can be simplified by one of a set of samples of experiences that we 'generalize' to associate the meaning to the perceived objects that are consistent across other senses in 'agreement'. For instance, if I touch something I am referencing as a 'solid', the sensation occurs as coincidable with the sight experience of my finger touching the preceived object simultaneously. Thus, these associations are what symbolize 'solids' for me, even though I cannot actually be certain the objects exist apart from my mind.

You'll likely agree to this much in principle so far. But can you now recognize a symbol for "absolutely nothing" with the same degree of faith of your senses?

Yes? If so, thank you, you've come to the Dark Side with me and we can move on.

No? If so, then are you asserting the symbol, "absolutely nothing", as meaningless or false? If so, then this can be symbolized as, "Not Absolute Nothing", correct? But why when...

"Not Absolute Nothing" is identical to meaning by implication, "Absolutely Something" exists.

...and....that the following state if real is defining a 'contradiction':

"Absolute Nothing AND Not Absolute Nothing exist if Absolutely Nothing were true OR false?

That is, if you agree that the reason you cannot accept Absolutely Nothing, it has to be due to some contradiction and that you dismissal of it is based upon that. It would become a 'paradox' if it were real, right?

But given Totality as defined is the Absolute All (infinitely so), and it contains all, including things contradictory, Absolute Nothing has to both MEAN something and be equally trusted as a referent to some reality that is just OUTSIDE our contingent world. If everything is just symbols, as they are, then the meaning without any burden to presume Absolutely Nothing as a mere 'symbol', suffices to justify it as valid and sound as any other perception. I presume you are not solipsistic nor presume your CONSCIOUS state has existed at all times outside your present awareness. Thus its safe to assert that you have 'empirical' supports that induce some absolute point prior to your "origin" exists such that "origin" has meaning as a time-based apriori truth of Totality and that time itself would be a dependent upon the existent 'proof' of Absolutely Nothing existing, as set forth above.

Absolutely Nothing, then, is both a real concept of mind as it is the perfect 'model' of its own real existence AND non-existence. Absolutely Nothing is a real and thus with the conditional, assures that it IS an 'origin', both relative or not. It is the foundation in the same sense as space is the foundational background to all matter and energy. We can only indirectly infer it but don't deny it as existing.

[Scott Mayers]

...

I actually DO have MORE to say beyond the conditional and why I opted for that title. It may have been written better but would not be able to fit in the title given they are two distinct parts.

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

I want to argue specifically FIRST for the conditional statement is true by meaning.

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

The conditional is true. Whether I am correct about the antecedent being true is a distinctly different point. I argued in my last post to Veritas the more depth of my meanings including how and why are argue THAT the antecedent is true. I urge you to look at it rather than me repeating it but will still challenge you on that separately.

But some are confused at the use of "absolutes" and, if you read my comment to Veritas above, you'll see some additional points of clarity to that.

IF your use of the word 'absolute/s' does not conflict nor contradict with what you claim is true, then there will be no confusion, from me anyway. However, whether what you claim is true or not is a completely other matter. So, do not let 'absolutes' concern 'you', in regards to 'me' anyway.

But this is the WHOLE ISSUE with writings our own thoughts down, that is; How do we write them down so that they do NOT cause CONFUSION in ANY "other" completely differently thinking human being?

In order to follow, I need the meaning of the conditional to be understood, the parts (antecedent and consequence) included. You and I already interpret that you cannot argue for finite boundaries if we cannot know what is on the other side with certainty.

But 'I' CERTAINLY do NOT 'interpret' this AT ALL.

Did I word something wrong? I am saying that you agreed that you cannot argue for a singularity as a real point because you would require knowing something on the other side of it to exist with certainty. The 'boundary' is a point, like the inferred singularity that is not able to literally be proven 'empirical' due to extreme 'ends' where they exist, require something on the other side. I remember you confusingly agreeing in meaning when you speak about it being infinite and I had to stop talking with you for the perpetual disagreements and contradictions you presented. I argued how Zenos paradoxes apply at 'walls' of either 'ends': the apparent singularity and, the whole of space. I don't care whether you agree now or not. You are too ready to disagree even where you should agree by what you've asserted. [Anticipated response: But I didn't 'assert' anything. I only ask questions... ]

What 'I' 'interpret' is IF ANY one says there is supposedly a 'boundary', then I just question them about; What is on the other side of that boundary?


I ask them this because from what I have observed, so far, there HAS TO BE some 'thing' on the other side.

So, it is NOT a matter of knowing, or not knowing, what is on the other side, the fact is because I do KNOW EXACTLY what is on the other side that I then CHOOSE to NOT argue for finite boundaries. Because, to me, to do so would be absurd AND ridiculous. So, it is not that I "cannot" argue for finite boundaries, because ANY one "can" argue for ANY thing, or more correctly, 'try to' argue for ANY thing. The Truth is, from what I have observed so far, EVERY thing is SHOWING me just how a boundless Universe ACTUALLY EXISTS.

If, however, ANY can come up with a sound and valid argument that a finite boundary can and/or does exist, then I am all well and good with that. I, for one, would LOVE to see that argument. Just as I would LOVE to see a sound and valid argument that there is NO finite boundary. Until either one is created AND shared I will just wait, patiently.

I explained "boundary" as a mathematical term that means any two points that exist EXCEPT for concern of the existence of the points themselves. If I give the following interval,

-3 < x < 3,

The bounding points here are -3 and 3 but do not include the points themselves. Then, as in math, there exists an INFINITE set of points between any two bounded points. The unbounded intervals are such that at least one end is 'open' to infinity or negatvie infinity or both. I WAS discussing particular points (as 'walls') that are INFERRED in some way. The Zeno's paradoxes are not 'paradoxical' in real finite walls or end points because there is still both time and space beyond the apparent endpoints. The goal point in the Achilles/Turtoise paradox has both space and time beyond it and why Achilles WILL pass the the Turtoise. But if you have a 'real' singularity, given it is presumed to be a real 'boundary' where it is presumed that all space and time (for this Universe) "originate", the paradox remains. That is, if the goal point for these two was the point at which Achilles overcomes the Tortoise, because the actual intended goal point is BEYOND that point and 'real', the paradox fails. But if there were nothing beyond the point they meet, then it would be true that the Achilles and the Tortoise would NEVER meet, as the paradox was asserting.
_____________

So we agree on that.

I suggest that you CLARIFY with "another" FIRST, BEFORE you say you agree with them.

My accusation of you not 'agreeing' is about the lack of closure about what is NOT said and to the repeating of many of the questions that I thought we already established that undoes what I thought we agreed upon before.

A LOT OF 'thinking' going on here. Again, I suggest just CLARIFYING, and 'KNOWING', before 'thinking', 'wondering' 'assuming' and 'guessing'.

As to whether Absolute Nothing exists is begging of the term 'exists' as it refers to time.

This is from YOUR point of view and from YOUR perspective.

From MY point of view and from MY perspective 'Absolutely Nothing' DOES EXIST in 'places'. In fact, these 'places' of Absolutely Nothing' 'HAS TO' EXIST. This is because thee One and ONLY Universe can ONLY 'exist' in One eternal AND infinite way, which is in the way thee Universe is in right HERE-NOW. However, and as you already well know, explaining ones own point of view, from their OWN perspective, so that "others" can and will FULLY UNDERSTAND takes quite a bit of time to learn how to explain FULLY.

Just as you are having 'trouble' explaining some words, so that they are FULLY UNDERSTOOD by "others", we can ALL share in this 'dilemma'. This is because we ALL define and use words in different ways.

See, to me, there is NO such 'thing' has 'time', other than a human behavior, so whether the term 'exists' as it refers to 'time' is a complete and utter misnomer, to me.

And then you at least agree to both the condition and that Absolute Nothing is real. While you appear to agree, I presume it fair that you still ask for clarity of the argument. ...

But time is itself an object that needs questioning as well as the other things, like "things", or space. If reality needs no magical being, we have to question assuming 'force' and 'energy' themselves as also pre-existing.

But 'time', itself, is an object, is YOUR view, and NOT necessarily True at all.

I agree that 'time' NEEDS questioning as well as 'things', 'space', AND even 'reality', itself.

If, as you say, 'reality' NEEDS NO 'magical being', then it could well be also said that ABSOLUTELY NO 'thing' NEEDS a 'magical being'. In fact the word 'magical' automatically implies or even infers that NO such 'being' is NEEDED anywhere at all.

Also, if 'you' HAVE TO question ASSUMING 'force' and 'energy' themselves as also pre-existing, then this would only be because you are ASSUMING that there was an 'origin', is 'time', and/or a 'pre-existence'. Which, to me, are ALL completely unnecessary ASSUMPTIONS. Especially considering what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

Now carrying on from my last point about the infinitesimal existing, the BOUNDARIES can still exist. The boundary I'm concerned with is PRIOR to time. So I do not consider Absolute Nothing as any point IN TIME. I am saying that it can be the background to which all things lie and such that IF anything singularly could exists as such a foundation, that would have to be this "Absolute Nothing".

It is somewhat a play on words that given you assert infinity as the default, then nothing could absolutely initiate a unique time or space where there could exist apparent boundaries. So you agree to the condition but think that denying the antecedent (or consequent) itself could exist by itself? So both exist and the condition then is not only true but the consequence of the condition is assured.

I think you agree in context to a fair interpretation of your responses but we may have to continue to understand each other's language only. It is my burden to try given I'm proposing something here. Maybe I have now? I'll have to wait and see.

The Big Bang assumes ONLY 'energy' existing but disrespects the fact that the logical/mathematical meaning entails the concepts of mass, time, and space (distances), not to mention 'direction'.

1. 'Bangs', 'big bangs', and/or 'the big bang' do NOT 'assume' absolutely ANY thing. ONLY human beings 'assume' 'things'.

2. So, who 'assumes' ONLY 'energy' existing when there was, supposedly and allegedly, what is called 'a big bang'.

Of course humans motivated the theory of the Big Bang, as with any theory. The question is to whethe the model presented maps precisely to the reality. The Big Bang model is the 'accepted' model that bases itself on assuming the singularity 'real', not virutal, AND that all of matter and energy that NOW exists, existed AT this point. [Many now backtrack and add ad hoc theories to retrofit the contradictions to preserve the general Big Bang. I believe it has to be political (for the religious majority) or is a sincere lack of logical inference at some point. I'm assuming preferentially that they are being political but cannot tell for sure.

But many questions arise as to why the Steady State model has been rejected given it doesn't have the logical issues that the Big Bang does.

Who has rejected the steady state model?

OBVIOUSLY ALL "models" are WRONG in some way. So, I question WHY they have NOT ALL been rejected YET, in the days of when this is being written.

It is being buried deep now. That is, there is a concerted effort to muzzle any record of it. I have complained to science promoters that they need to address this but even on the most recent 'Cosmos' series, for instance, when they speak of cosmological background and arguments for the Big Bang, they completely eliminate ANY word of the Steady State model now. I can't even comment on this in ANY physics forums without my posts being blocked (or, where kept, is missing context by the material they've deleted OR edited out!) Try it for yourself.

Even on the open forum discussion section on "Steady State" theory by Wikipedia INSTANTLY removes even any questions of doubt or skepticism and makes it appear that no one questions the Big Bang. The material is literally purged. And what they do supply now is intentionally insulting to the credibility of those that first introduced it. Even Einstein believed it but this too is buried. [I actually found a paper at one point that he wrote attempting to argue a version of his own 'steady state' theory. I knew already by his prior writings that he likely believed this too, as did most at the time. But when the old guard died off, the new was replaced by institutes who have very strong political (and 'cultural') biases that are now relatively locked in place.

The Steady State models reverse the assumption of particular favor that the 'singularity' references some finite real point. It also questions the assumption that there really was some time when all things in the total universe were "less than the size of an atom", contradictory to the very spirit of 'empiricism' it begs it is based upon. As such, I need to show that reality CAN come from Absolutely Nothing.

Why do 'you' FEEL the 'need' to show such a thing as this?

Also, IF you can REALLY show that 'reality' CAN come from Absolutely Nothing, then WHY NOT just SHOW 'it'?

I cannot 'show' what Nature itself has the only power to 'show' in a way that might be possibly 'simple' enough to interpret. The Steady State version is not approved of because it has a stronger power to dislodge ANY and ALL religious beliefs that even supercedes the power of evolution theory! I think that since 'science' as an institute wants to keep respect on political grounds, they have to opt for the 'grand' theories that still do not insult the validity of religion, especially of the majority on all sides of the political spectrum.

It is needed to correctly represent the logic of physics that lead to chemistry with relative closure. I have described this on this site before but cannot find it when I've searched for some reason. But I only outlined it anyways.

I'll have to stop here for now. I'm suddenly unable to type. [I think my ISP keeps checking on my activity when I type certain key words and it prevents me from typing without struggle. ??Steady State is tr...h=ti ygihgha;rh? ]

[Scott Mayers]

"Consistency" is DEFINED by the Law of Identity ....AND it DOES apply to reality.

No, it doesn't.

It's simply a rule in the formal system. It's ABOUT the formal system. It says nothing about "reality".

Okay, wise guy, pretend it is NOT a rule of logic. Then what can you infer?

The Law of Identity asserts that given anything, it is what it is unless something alters its identity. That is, if you ASSIGN a symbol to reference something, like your avatar name, "Skepdick", that it is a rule of logical conduct to KEEP the meanings the same. If the symbol represents a variable (versus a constant), then the symbol still references a place holder that is 'constant', like the particular memory space of a computer that gets assigned to
a label but may permit the values it contains to vary.

The other two laws are just extensions of this but differ by perspective. Note that the "=" (equality sign) is also a 'double negation' reference. While a contradiction is normally removed, the other logics basically EXTEND these. For instance, you can 'deny' that a contradiction is required to mean we must remove the cause but to create a split in parallel 'processes' (like a computer). [I am unable to type. I will come back later when I can]

[Skepdick]

Okay, wise guy, pretend it is NOT a rule of logic. Then what can you infer?

Quantum physics.

Quoting directly from the paper (that you didn't read)

in the field of quantum mechanics the concepts of identity and of indistinguishability are not equivalent. Physicists use the
term indistinguishability to mean that entites agree with respect to attributes, and not to express the idea that they are the same object

iddistinguishability.png (97.12 KiB) Viewed 1754 times

The Law of Identity asserts that given anything, it is what it is unless something alters its identity.

The most trivial "something" which alters the identity of everything is the passage of a unit-time.

That is, if you ASSIGN a symbol to reference something, like your avatar name, "Skepdick", that it is a rule of logical conduct to KEEP the meanings the same.

Skepdick @ time(n) != Skepdick @ time(n+1)

It's not even an original idea! It's Heraclitus... No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.

If the symbol represents a variable (versus a constant), then the symbol still references a place holder that is 'constant', like the particular memory space of a computer that gets assigned to a label but may permit the values it contains to vary.

And now you are just equivocating. Is the "identity" of the thing its memory address or the value stored at the memory address?

The other two laws are just extensions of this but differ by perspective. Note that the "=" (equality sign) is also a 'double negation' reference.

"equality" is undefined in logic. It's an arithmetic operator.

While a contradiction is normally removed, the other logics basically EXTEND these. For instance, you can 'deny' that a contradiction is required to mean we must remove the cause but to create a split in parallel 'processes' (like a computer). [I am unable to type. I will come back later when I can]

You can interpret a "contradiction" however you want. Point is that it's an empirical phenomenon.

Is just mutation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posting

[Veritas Aequitas]

No. I read it through and note that you are just repeating yourself from what I've already learned from you in other threads: that you think there is SOME 'absolute' to morals or morality. In the quote of mine you responded to this above only asserted you sought moral absolutes. I don't think morals can be 'scientifically' proven to mean anything outside of POLITICAL philosophy. They are merely 'rules of conduct' that one or more people opt to abide by that are either self-derived, imposed from others, or negotiated as a means to optimize someone's selfish favor. Before I suggested to you that this CAN be rational only if you recognize your search is for "conditionals", such as

"IF (behavior X occurs), THEN (Let X be 'good'/'bad')"
"IF (one then does X), THEN (Let us do Y as a consequence we set upon our society)

You, to me, are presuming some universal unique behaviors exist for humans that optmize some degree of comfort. But there is no such functioning universal rules of conduct that are themselves satisfactory to ALL people. Thus, given you denied the conditional point before AND the nature of it being a 'politic' (a construct negotiated or enforced among people BY one or more persons), I interpret this to mean that you believe at least in some local (relative) form of universal (absolute). Thus, I interpret your search for morals itself is 'religious-like' AND, as you oddly accuse me of, due to some psychological issue you have in mind [...such as a fear of what it might mean should no morals be provable in principle to exist beyond political or social-psychological interactions.]

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

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

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

So....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting Kant again;

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

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

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

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note my point re Science above, i.e. Science objective is not chasing after absolute truths, since by default it conditioned whatever truths it generate.
Thus the empirical limitations and all other limitations are already factored into whatever the scientific truths and users should be aware of these limitations when they rely upon scientific knowledge.

Despite its inherent limitations, Science is the most credible source of knowledge and thus the standard bearer of truths of reality at present. Besides mathematics which is merely a tool like logic, what else is more reliable and credible in representing the truths of reality?

All math IS a subset of logic, not merely a 'likeness'. My only mention of it here was to assert that I believe that you CAN discover a mechanism for absolutes or universal facts of nature.
Obviously Nature itself has this 'knowledge' and it doesn't even require a brain!
So I am arguing that the logic I present here on Absolute Nothing is foundationally and absolutely true regardless of whether I can satisfactorily 'prove' this to you or others.

Nature IS a 'mechanism' that creates us without a need for anything at all,....absolutely nothing at all.

While you bet that the original thinkers of these concepts had passed on thought that some have evolved into a part of their religion, like defining 'Totality' as something universallly 'good' (ie, "God'), my motives here are most non-religious: I do not believe in 'values' that are universal moral values as assignments of 'good' or 'bad' to things. [... and thus my reason for bringing up your views in contrast here.

In counter to your above points, note my thread on;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
Point is Nature and Reality [all there is] do not exists independent without any interaction with the human conditions.

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

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

When you expect that I'd have to present to you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, I can. And if you think I can't, then you've proven me correct. In fact, I'd be more doubtful to someone who might assert they can 'observe' directly this 'absolute nothing!
But you CAN infer indirectly what this is.
But I KNOW that you, like others, are biased to default assuming TIME as the measure that is needed to exist as a 'source'. We are trapped to using words like 'exist' if only to be taken serious at all, though. That is, I have no word that I am able to use to express the reality of "absolutely nothing" that is acceptable to the concept of an 'origin'. The logicians of the past realized this and so came up with, apriori, only for later generations to again place 'time' in its meaning given it has the root, 'prior' in it. You cannot win. If I make up a word, like "ukko", this won't help either. I am forced to use words that we all relate to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also presented and clarified to you and others here that the first part of even trying to prove myself here is to demonstrate that the logical CONDITIONAL is true, not that an absolute nothing or origin exists.
That is, if there IS any 'origin' (whether it be of time or not) to Totality, then the ONLY logical possiblity is for it to be absolutely nothing.
And if THIS cannot even be agreed on, you default to assuming Totality in religious terms because you not only imply that absolutely ALL things are NOT possible in Totality (because you at least exclude Absolutely Nothing) but that some SPECIAL number of things in between Absoulute Nothing and Absolutely Everything has to be the case without 'empirical' proof of EXCLUSION to those extremes. On merely logical grounds, if Absolutely Somthing is all that you can assert for merely having the capacity to 'observe' at all, you cannot assert any specific disproof of this nor of any of the other 'absolutes'.

As I had stated, you missed my point above;

• VA: I would have no issue if you claim whatever totality-in-itself is merely a thought and restricted to thoughts only but not to real empirical things.

Btw, even Science makes such an ASSUMPTION that there is something of final objective reality that it trying to discover whilst its process can only verify and justify merely an approximation of that final objective reality.
But note this is only an assumption.

If you claim your absolute-nothing is an assumption, I would understand but not necessary agree.

THEN you at least agree to the conditional statement. And given some of what I just mentioned about regarding my reasoning that an Absolute Nothing MUST exist must respect the meaning without placing time, space, or energy there. Do you agree that each 'point' in space-time is a "relative nothing"?
If so, then the collection of all 'relative nothings' covers all of space and all that is in its domain. The heading of the set of all 'relative nothings' is the set as a whole, to which you can label, "Absolute Nothing" as its class container.

Now given this still 'feels' non-empirical to you, I can then move on to discussing why it IS 'empirical' nevertheless.

I view reality this way.
Space-time is the ground of reality, all-there-is.
Each "point" is a thing of reality, i.e. within all there is.
The space-time is the ground of each 'point'.

We are not in a position to speculate there is 'something' beyond space-time, because space-time is the ground of ALL things.

Thus this is why humans tend to speculate there is an ultimate thing or nothing is due to a primal existential drive to so.

Logic is the symbolic representation of reality when WE do it. But this is the 'tool' we are forced to use regardless that assigns reference pointers (symbols) about the realities we are referencing [those 'things-in-themselves].
Logic, as the "mechanism" or "machine" of Nature still exists even though it directly deals with the particular realities rather than symbols. Again, we are stuck with words that have associations to our actions. But we DISCOVER logic, even if we can also create them. Nature has some mechanism or 'reasoning' that enables us to exist as conscious beings that observe. Without the mechanisms, we either had to exist eternally (and should be able to prove this with 'empiricism') or we are 'born' as a subset of Totality based upon the physics involving time, space, and energy most specifically true of our own Universe.

Logic as a tool is inherent to humans not to Nature per se.
Note,
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology
There is no logic existing out there independent of humans.

Given our perception of the objects outside of our consciousness are at BEST, symbolic representations of reality, then we are still forced to accept that the patterns we perceive about reality are as ephemoral constructs that you can argue reasonably are as fallible as the "logic" that deals with ONLY symbols. Thus, we have no distinction between interpreting ANYTHING 'real' as symbolic or non-symbolic.
Thus one's mere capacity to 'observe' at all have to be based on a 'logic of Nature' (the mechanisms of it) that also is based on enabling the reality of symbols themselves as 'real objects'.

To the contrary of the above,
what we perceive consciously of reality and external to us, is a reality [internal and external] that we co-create unconsciously as part and parcel of reality.

Just in case, nope, I am not saying we merely wave a wand and reality appeared for us to perceive it.
Humans being co-creators [collectively] of reality is more sophisticated than the above magic approach.

Now "science" itself is just the collective opinions of other 'objects' (ie people) out there to which you gamble via the symbolic representation of the senses to exist and 'appear' as agreeing or not with your own opinion. To trust that any environmental perception you have is certainly 'more real' than the symbolic representation is flawed for being hypocritically applied to what YOU directly have concerns with in your life as "that which matters to you only."
This to me is just the psychological role of emotions that drive us to exist selfishly. The point here is that we literally define matter itself based solely on what matters to us. What is 'real' is the illusion of consciousness that is itself indeterminate to know except as 'symbols'.

For example, what I learn about things we call, 'solids', as existing reality can be simplified by one of a set of samples of experiences that we 'generalize' to associate the meaning to the perceived objects that are consistent across other senses in 'agreement'. For instance, if I touch something I am referencing as a 'solid', the sensation occurs as coincidable with the sight experience of my finger touching the preceived object simultaneously. Thus, these associations are what symbolize 'solids' for me, even though I cannot actually be certain the objects exist apart from my mind.

You'll likely agree to this much in principle so far. But can you now recognize a symbol for "absolutely nothing" with the same degree of faith of your senses?

Yes? If so, thank you, you've come to the Dark Side with me and we can move on.

No? If so, then are you asserting the symbol, "absolutely nothing", as meaningless or false? If so, then this can be symbolized as, "Not Absolute Nothing", correct? But why when...

"Not Absolute Nothing" is identical to meaning by implication, "Absolutely Something" exists.

...and....that the following state if real is defining a 'contradiction':

"Absolute Nothing AND Not Absolute Nothing exist if Absolutely Nothing were true OR false?

That is, if you agree that the reason you cannot accept Absolutely Nothing, it has to be due to some contradiction and that you dismissal of it is based upon that. It would become a 'paradox' if it were real, right?

But given Totality as defined is the Absolute All (infinitely so), and it contains all, including things contradictory, Absolute Nothing has to both MEAN something and be equally trusted as a referent to some reality that is just OUTSIDE our contingent world. If everything is just symbols, as they are, then the meaning without any burden to presume Absolutely Nothing as a mere 'symbol', suffices to justify it as valid and sound as any other perception. I presume you are not solipsistic nor presume your CONSCIOUS state has existed at all times outside your present awareness. Thus its safe to assert that you have 'empirical' supports that induce some absolute point prior to your "origin" exists such that "origin" has meaning as a time-based apriori truth of Totality and that time itself would be a dependent upon the existent 'proof' of Absolutely Nothing existing, as set forth above.

Absolutely Nothing, then, is both a real concept of mind as it is the perfect 'model' of its own real existence AND non-existence.
Absolutely Nothing is a real and thus with the conditional, assures that it IS an 'origin', both relative or not.
It is the foundation in the same sense as space is the foundational background to all matter and energy. We can only indirectly infer it but don't deny it as existing.

As state above, I view reality this way.

• Space-time is the ground of reality, all-there-is.
  Each "point" is a thing of reality, i.e. within all there is.
  The space-time is the ground of each 'point'.

If your absolute-nothing is a relative absolute, then it is a thing where its ground is space-time.

Since space-time is the most fundamental ground of all things, there cannot be a similar or ground beyond space-time.

As Kant implied, because humans are caught within a terrible state of existential dissonance, humans are "programmed" to slip in groundless pseudo-rational things, i.e. things-in-themselves as consonances to relieve the dissonance.

• We mentioned Michael Shermer some where.
  He postulated [.I inferred from other sources] 'that humans are driven psychologically to something ultimate be it 'something' or 'nothing' [weird stuffs, God, ultimate cause] because we have inherited that "program' from our very early ancestors.
  Long long ago, those of our ancestors who survived were the ones who were quick to jump to conclusion, e.g. upon the sound of a broken twig among the bushes they immediately jump to the hasty conclusion there must certainly be a sable-toothed tiger and they run like hell to ensure survival and their existence.
  
  Those who are indifferent and did not jump to conclusion of certainty there are predators, were likely to be eaten by sable-toothed tigers or other predators.
  
  The above 'program' "hasty jump to conclude something ultimate" from our very early ancestors who had survived were naturally adapted into the human DNA which still exists and is active in the modern man.

The above is one of the reason why you are driven to seek the ultimate of reality, i.e. some thing that is 'absolutely-absolute-nothing'.

[Age]

I actually DO have MORE to say beyond the conditional and why I opted for that title. It may have been written better but would not be able to fit in the title given they are two distinct parts.

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

I want to argue specifically FIRST for the conditional statement is true by meaning.

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

The conditional is true.

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

Whether I am correct about the antecedent being true is a distinctly different point.

What IS the 'antecedent', now, which may or may NOT be true?

I argued in my last post to Veritas the more depth of my meanings including how and why are argue THAT the antecedent is true.

What EXACTLY IS 'it', which you, supposedly, 'argued' in your last post to "veritas"?

To me, IF you 'mean' some thing in what you write, then that IS what you mean. From my perspective, one does NOT 'have to' 'argue' for "more depth of their own meanings".

I suggest that if 'you' 'mean' some thing, then just say 'it'.

I urge you to look at it rather than me repeating it but will still challenge you on that separately.

You urge me to look at 'what', EXACTLY?

But some are confused at the use of "absolutes" and, if you read my comment to Veritas above, you'll see some additional points of clarity to that.

IF your use of the word 'absolute/s' does not conflict nor contradict with what you claim is true, then there will be no confusion, from me anyway. However, whether what you claim is true or not is a completely other matter. So, do not let 'absolutes' concern 'you', in regards to 'me' anyway.

But this is the WHOLE ISSUE with writings our own thoughts down, that is; How do we write them down so that they do NOT cause CONFUSION in ANY "other" completely differently thinking human being?

In order to follow, I need the meaning of the conditional to be understood, the parts (antecedent and consequence) included. You and I already interpret that you cannot argue for finite boundaries if we cannot know what is on the other side with certainty.

But 'I' CERTAINLY do NOT 'interpret' this AT ALL.

Did I word something wrong?

OBVIOUSLY NO, from your perspective.

But, OBVIOUSLY YES, from mine and other's perspectives.

However, IF you just provide and write CLEAR, SUCCINCT definitions for the words that you use, so that ALL of what you are saying makes PERFECT SENSE, to 'us', as well as to 'you', then you will have NOT worded something wrong.

I am saying that you agreed that you cannot argue for a singularity as a real point because you would require knowing something on the other side of it to exist with certainty.

PLEASE, NEVER tell ME, nor another, what I have, supposedly, "agreed to" without providing the actual proof of this.

By the way, and copying your usage of words here, 'I KNOW something on the other side of it, with certainty'.

The 'boundary' is a point, like the inferred singularity that is not able to literally be proven 'empirical' due to extreme 'ends' where they exist, require something on the other side.

To me, a, supposed and alleged, 'boundary' to the entire Universe is NOT a 'point'.

Also, how do you KNOW that 'the inferred singularity', is NOT able to literally be proven 'empirical' FOREVER MORE?

I remember you confusingly agreeing in meaning when you speak about it being infinite and I had to stop talking with you for the perpetual disagreements and contradictions you presented.

LOL

What is the 'it', which I SUPPOSEDLY speak about being infinite?

And LOL MORE, What AND where are the supposed and alleged, "disagreements and contradictions", which I supposedly and allegedly "presented".

Just speaking, WITHOUT PROVING, is, literally, REALLY saying NOTHING AT ALL.

If you can NOT or do NOT intend to back up AND support YOUR CLAIMS, then I suggest NOT expressing those CLAIMS at all.

I argued how Zenos paradoxes apply at 'walls' of either 'ends': the apparent singularity and, the whole of space.

IF 'you' had 'argued' some thing, soundly AND validly, then that would be an irrefutable Truth.

Until you provide such an argument, then what you are REALLY meaning here is; 'you' 'tried to' argue, what you allege here.

By the way, using, so called, "zeno's paradox" to 'try to' argue some thing, will NEVER work. This is because "zeno's pardox" is written in such a way, to fool and deceive people, just like 'you'.

"zeno's paradox", by itself, does NOT prove absolutely ANY thing, AT ALL.

I don't care whether you agree now or not.

Good. Now let us SEE how long this lasts for.

You are too ready to disagree even where you should agree by what you've asserted. [Anticipated response: But I didn't 'assert' anything. I only ask questions... ]

Well that is A PRIME EXAMPLE of ANOTHER ASSUMPTION that could NOT BE MORE WRONG.

I was to busy LAUGHING at your, "even where you should agree by what you've asserted" remark, to ASSUME such a thing as this.

Now, IF, and ONLY IF, 'you' REALLY do want to KNOW how I was going to reply, THEN, what I was ACTUALLY going to say was;

What have I 'asserted'?

What have I asserted, which would lead you to ASSUME that I should agree with you here? And,

What, EXACTLY, is 'it', which you think or BELIEVE I should be agreeing with?

What 'I' 'interpret' is IF ANY one says there is supposedly a 'boundary', then I just question them about; What is on the other side of that boundary?


I ask them this because from what I have observed, so far, there HAS TO BE some 'thing' on the other side.

So, it is NOT a matter of knowing, or not knowing, what is on the other side, the fact is because I do KNOW EXACTLY what is on the other side that I then CHOOSE to NOT argue for finite boundaries. Because, to me, to do so would be absurd AND ridiculous. So, it is not that I "cannot" argue for finite boundaries, because ANY one "can" argue for ANY thing, or more correctly, 'try to' argue for ANY thing. The Truth is, from what I have observed so far, EVERY thing is SHOWING me just how a boundless Universe ACTUALLY EXISTS.

If, however, ANY can come up with a sound and valid argument that a finite boundary can and/or does exist, then I am all well and good with that. I, for one, would LOVE to see that argument. Just as I would LOVE to see a sound and valid argument that there is NO finite boundary. Until either one is created AND shared I will just wait, patiently.

I explained "boundary" as a mathematical term that means any two points that exist EXCEPT for concern of the existence of the points themselves. If I give the following interval,

-3 < x < 3,

The bounding points here are -3 and 3 but do not include the points themselves. Then, as in math, there exists an INFINITE set of points between any two bounded points.

What has ANY of this got to do with ANY thing that I have said?

The unbounded intervals are such that at least one end is 'open' to infinity or negatvie infinity or both. I WAS discussing particular points (as 'walls') that are INFERRED in some way. The Zeno's paradoxes are not 'paradoxical' in real finite walls or end points because there is still both time and space beyond the apparent endpoints. The goal point in the Achilles/Turtoise paradox has both space and time beyond it and why Achilles WILL pass the the Turtoise. But if you have a 'real' singularity, given it is presumed to be a real 'boundary' where it is presumed that all space and time (for this Universe) "originate", the paradox remains.

Well this is A PRIME EXAMPLE of making what is Truly and ESSENTIALLY EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY, seem VERY PERPLEXING and HARD.

That is, if the goal point for these two was the point at which Achilles overcomes the Tortoise, because the actual intended goal point is BEYOND that point and 'real', the paradox fails.

Please do NOT forget that you just wrote and said, "zeno's paradoxes are NOT 'paradoxical'.

Besides that NONE of this has absolutely ANY thing to do with what I have said, remembering that you just wrote that, then HOW does the "paradox" fail, EXACTLY?

But if there were nothing beyond the point they meet, then it would be true that the Achilles and the Tortoise would NEVER meet, as the paradox was asserting.

So, you want to use, so called, "paradoxes", which you state are "not paradoxical", in a place which you now state there is NOTHING, and then assert that this would then match with some claim in some, so called, "paradox".
_____________

LOOK, IF there was a, so called, 'singularity', then what caused/created 'it'?

Learn how to answer that question, properly AND correctly, then you will KNOW if there was an 'origin' or not. And then, you could START to figure out if it is worth 'trying to' argue for Absolutely Nothing absolutely existing at 'that' 'origin', or NOT.