My use of Absolute Nothing, is the form or backdrop that space itself, as points, represents. The difference is like that between the empty set and zero, in set theory.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 2:43 amSpace occupies space.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 2:34 amI agree. What Veritas is doing is POSTULATING the subject perceiving (oneself) AND the observations without permitting questioning. While this is fine for science, where science strictly politicizes observations [has agreement among all participants to the phenomena without question but by consensus alone.]Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:52 am Off tangent, if empiricism is that which is percieved through the senses, then what do the senses interpret other than matter? All forms are thus matter self referencing itself through newer and newer forms.
Reality is a thing in itself given it is self referencing through newer and newer forms. It is conditioned upon itself alone.
Note that Einstein had thought experiments on this and came up with 'relativity' of matter-to-matter as what is required. That is, he argued that if one is the ONLY thing in empty space as an 'observer', even as it 'matters' to the observer, nothing could be interpreted about itself nor of anything else. Thus, he argued that you at least require another 'matter' that requires you to 'observe' it as it to you.
This is the thought experiment of imagining how a spinning dancer or ice-skater alone cannot infer anything without a reference of another object. If you have two dancers that begin close, then 'evidence' of CHANGE requires noting how a spin should pull you apart, or that a push of each other moves them both away from their original position.
Since also physics adds that matter has 'mass AND resists change (with respect to other masses), gravity implied as a measure of mass cannot exist without two or more distinct masses and the very space it occupies as extant.
Since matter 'occupies' space, then space itself has to be real and cannot be explained outside of the abstraction of math (ie, logic). So this topic is rightfully not 'scientific' but philosophical metaphysics and is apriori to matter itself.
A circle is space.
What is around and within the circle is space.
Matter is the form, space, which emerges from space. Space results in space as space simultaneously multiplies and divides itself: cut a line in half and two whole lines result. Each line is a whole in itself and half compared to the original. The division of space is the multiplication of space.
I explain how space 'manifests' matter in my theory. But for the present argument matter can only be interpreted as existing BY matter, something I was helping your argument above with Veritas. The very term, "existence" has the prefix, "ex-", which means outside (of the observer). The "I-stance" is the observer that requires ANY outside factor in order to define itself reflexively. If one or the other exists alone, nothing can be inferred. [This is another reason I argue for the apriori state of an Absolute Nothing. It lacks substance because it is the 'foundation' of what anything may be or become.]