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

[Skepdick]

STEP ONE:
Would you agree that the Law of Identity is 'absolutely' true in consistent Worlds?

No, I would not. Neither would Schrödinger

All the "laws" of logic are normative, not descriptive - they violate the is-ought gap.

[Age]

Not really, well maybe, well sort of?.

Why I used it was to argue for Totality, not necessarily this universe.

How many 'Universes' do you think or believe there is?

Why say "this", as in "this universe"? Who does the word "this" relate to?

By definition the word 'Universe', literally, means Totality/Everything. So, using this definition there can NOT be a "this universe", as though there was another one.

So "absolute" is used to speak about what is always 'true' of Totality even if that is 'contradictory' because I think Totality doesn't have a mind (like some God) and would thus only present worlds within it regardless of whether many (or most) would remain contradictory. That is, I think the "consistent" worlds are ONLY a subset of all possible worlds and I reasoned from inside a consistent one in the same way Turing first set up a Universal machine that was 'consistent' to show that you cannot have consistency without inconsistencies on a greater set of things beyond the range of consistent logics (and thus are 'incomplete').

I'm certain I discussed this with you before and it got nowhere.

What is 'this', EXACTLY?

And, if you just answer my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, the 'this' gets AND goes somewhere. This gets to thee Truth of things. As will be PROVEN IF you just answer my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

I am discussing something that is INCLUSIVE of all possible worlds.

What does the word 'worlds' here refer to EXACTLY, and in what context are you using that word?

And if you are only postulating this particular universe,

I am NOT postulating 'this particular universe'. I am asking 'you' to CLARIFY what you say.

I asked you to CLARIFY what the word 'this' means when YOU used that word in relation to 'universe'.

you are welcome to remove the terms 'absolute' anywhere. But you would probably NOT treat that which is 'not-true' as being contained IN this Universe, regardless.

When, and IF, you EVER CLARIFY what you mean when YOU say, "this universe", then we CAN discuss 'that'.

Until then what appears to be happening is you are PRESUMING some 'thing', which I find completely IMPOSSIBLE.

That is, you no doubt think that if X is not-true, it " X lies outside of this Universe"

Well this is a PRIME EXAMPLE of just how ASSUMPTIONS can lead people COMPLETELY ASTRAY.

I suggest that if instead of you focusing on what you ASSUME is true and focused on what I ACTUALLY WRITE and is ACTUALLY TRUE, then you will SEE things FAR CLEARER as well as STAY on the RIGHT PATH.

which would lead to endless contradictions I mean to prevent.

If you STOPPED ASSUMING what I think, then you would NOT END UP down this path and at a WRONG CONCLUSION, just like you have here.

A Universe, is, like a 'universal class' which is ONE of a set of many possible worlds.

If you want to speak of IMAGINED 'universes', then I suggest just making that ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, prior.

If our world is the ONLY absolute,

What do 'you' mean by, "our world"?

Who does the word 'our' refer to, EXACTLY? And, what do 'you' mean by 'world'?

then we return to some religious justification to express how and why our reality as a whole is so "special".

This is about one of the most ABSURD and RIDICULOUS conclusions I have SEEN one ARRIVE AT. ESPECIALLY considering absolutely NONE of this has ABSOLUTELY ANY THING to do with just those TWO VERY SIMPLE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS I asked you and what I said in relation to what the word 'Universe', literally, means.

[Age]

To me, given that we cannot find a source for 'causation', then this absolute truth about the ultimate cause is itself 'contradiction' if and only if you begin with Absolutely Nothing as Absolutely true at that origin.

Why do you, continue, to ASSUME that there was an 'origin'?

Also, thee ACTUAL source for 'causation' has ALREADY been found, and is ALREADY now well understood.

Why do you keep interpreting that I'm asserting this as 'necessary' of this particular universe.

But I am NOT asserting ANY such thing.

In fact I NEVER even used the words 'universe' nor 'this' here.

You are the one INTERPRETING here.

I just asked you the VERY SIMPLE OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTION; Why do you, continue, to ASSUME that there was an 'origin'?

OBVIOUSLY, if you continue to INSIST that you have proof that some 'thing' exists as an 'Origin', then you MUST BE ASSUMING that there was an 'origin'. I am just asking you to CLARIFY WHY you ASSUME there was an 'origin'.

You do BELIEVE or ASSUME there was an 'origin' correct?

The title says that "Absolute Nothing ...exists as an origin" and means that IF we have an 'origin', it has to be Absolutely Nothing.

But that DOES NOT mean that at all. Well not to me anyway.

The title says that you have/there is PROOF that "Absolutely Nothing ... exists as an origin", which means, to me anyway, that THERE IS an 'origin'. If one claims that they have PROOF for some 'thing', then this, usually, indicates that that 'thing' ACTUALLY ALREADY EXISTS, correct?

It does NOT, to me, usually, indicate that what they CLAIM can be PROVEN is just an IF it exists.

This should be fine for you because it means, given your confined belief to speak only of this particular physical realm,

You are SO WRONG, in SO MANY WAYS, this is beyond being funny anymore.

I do NOT have a 'belief', let alone a 'confined belief'.
I do NOT speak of this, so called, "particular physical realm".
You are the one making CLAIMS here.
I am just trying to CLARIFY and ASCERTAIN what you ACTUALLY MEAN, but you are the one who is making ASSUMPTIONS about 'me' and what i am just ASKING YOU.

it means in essence that there is NO origin.

So, what are you saying here? Are you saying that you CLAIM that you have PROOF of what actually exists as an 'Origin', BUT actually there is NO 'origin'?

This would then mean that THIS universe is 'special' though, as I just mentioned above.

And I have ASKED YOU PREVIOUSLY, What do you mean by; "this" universe.

What this MEANS that UNTIL you CLARIFY 'what you ACTUALLY mean', then I have absolutely NO idea what 'this universe' refers to, EXACTLY.

For instance, if this is the ONLY world, one Universe, then we have no 'free choices' anywhere and that thus our particlar HISTORY is Absolutely Unique!

If there is One and ONLY Universe, then WHY does this, to you, MEAN that 'we' have NO 'free choices'?

I do NOT see HOW nor WHY this would 'logically' follow.

(See, you can't avoid the term 'absolute' or you end up unclear or foggy about meanings.)

What has the word 'absolute' got to do with ANY of the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS that I have been asking you?

I have NOT even used that word in this thread, until just now.

If you come to a road where you have an equal choice to turn left as to right, then that would only be an illusion if you thought that whichever options you didn't select was actully 'possible'.

HOW and WHY did you end up now talking about 'free will/determinism'?

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If this absolute is ultimate reality similar to God, then such an absolute is totally unconditional, i.e. a thing existing as thing-by-itself [or thing-in-itself] independent of all other things.
This 3 would be an absolutely-absolute, not a relative absolute.

STEP ONE:
Would you agree that the Law of Identity is 'absolutely' true in consistent Worlds?

But,
The 'Law of Identity' is absolutely true as law ONLY within the framework and system [FS] of classical logic. There are other logical FS which do not agree with the above.
Therefore whilst it is absolutely-true conditioned within the logical FS, such as absoluteness is merely a relative-absolute.

For example, absolute temperature is only an absolute that is relative to the scientific framework, it cannot be a standalone absolute by itself without reference to the scientific framework.
Another is "absolute-monarchy" which is relative to the political framework and system.

What I ended up posting differed from an original that expanded on using 'relative-absolute' versus 'absolute-absolute'. But these are not well defined.
Definiton (3) IS the 'absolute-absolute' type (as you noticed) but lacks the meaning from (1) expressing uniquess via, "without relation to other things".

All I use the terms describing absolutes are the ULTIMATE general forms to which, in Anselm's misappropriation to 'god' was, "that which no greater can be conceived." There is how the term God fits in with defintion (3): by defining 'God' as a static secular thing, like the Universe, or Totality. I opted to use 'absolute' to represent the highest general classes to which is NOT a 'member' of anything greater. Otherwise, one may confuse the relative universals, like our particular Universal, as all there is without proof. If you remove the 'absolutes', the logic still remains but cannot point out how the extreme general reality, I label, "Totality", is itself INCONSISTENT. That is, since there is nothing 'greater' than Totality, by my intended defintion, All that exists AND all that doesn't exist are MEMBERS within the class, Totality.

With reference to using the classical logic, I purposely chose a "consistent" logic that is most agreed to. All other systems involve allowances for inconsistency, something I use the consistent logic to demonstrate. We have to use consistent logic if even to demonstrate THAT Totality is actually 'inconsistent'. By starting out with any 'inconsistent logic' we cannot prove anything at all, even though Totality is rooted in it. My argument CAN be used as a supporting justification FOR all the other systems, just as the Incompleteness theorem used a complete system to show that you cannot find a universally perfect machine/logic that can cover all truths.

The logic I used is sound and based ONLY on consistent logics that are foundations to all other types.

Given you have 'empirical' evidence of at least Something existing, would you not be confident in yourself that Something is Absolutely true?
And if so, that Absolute truth must entail Absolutely Something?
I'll presume you answered YES to the above.

I don't the term 'absolute' is necessary here.
If something existing is true, the best answer is, it is true as conditioned and justified via the scientific framework and system.
Since it is conditioned within a FS, it cannot be an absolutely-absolute truth in the ultimate sense. It is thus merely a relative-absolute at best.

If you are to use the term absolute in this case, it is can only be a relative-absolute like absolute-temperature which is only an absolute that is relative to the scientific framework,
It cannot be not an absolutely-absolute, i.e. thing-by-itself independent of everything else.

Re your argument;
Since your intended use for the term absolute [as 3 defined above] is with reference to an absolutely-absolute, i.e. a thing-by-itself [thing-in-itself] that is totally unconditional,
what you are proposing subsequently, i.e. relative-absolute,
they will not follow, thus reaching an invalid argument.

If that is the general approach of your detail argument, the following conclusion is not valid.

You cannot conflate or equivocate an absolutely-absolute [your definition 3 above] with your subsequent relative-absolute or vice-versa.

Thus I will not go into the details unless your overall syllogism is valid.

My logic is both VALID and sound by the definitions used and is mapped to our empirical real life experiences of classifying things. I have studied various logics and Aristotle's Syllogistic logic used to be thought complete but is now included as a subset of the Propositional and Predicate logics. I also use boolean logic and even know how to extend it for multivariables. I would keep simple and stick with propositional logic and the boolean logic (which deals with truth values uniquely).

I am not adopting Kant's terms nor will delve into Aristotle's Syllogistic logic given it requires a lot more digression just to determine what you know from what I know. We'd also need diagrams to aid in expressing the depth, including things like 'distribution' and other things. But that is a topic for comparative logic studies, not for my specific argument. I can try to demonstrate it in various logic systems you relate to better, just like I partly tried to do above using a mixture of propositional, predicate, and boolean logics.

One last point: I also used the content of the variable terms that relate to logic terms, like that Nothing means "not ONE thing", which mean not-Something. This is why the 'absolute' is effectively useful here. I can use the content's meaning that speaks of the system's logic within a variable term. It is a proof that the system of logic BY Nature is itself inconsistent.

Rather than using 'absolute-absolute' or 'relative-absolute', it is probably better to use something like "perfect absolute" versus "absolute where it is defaulted in meaning that all absolutes are 'relative' children to some other absolute unless it is 'perfect'. In set theory, a similar way of describing their 'subsets' is of the "proper subset" versus the plain inclusive "subset"; Or...all sets are 'classes' but not all classes are sets. Thus, they also use "class" to mean all objects in their system but "proper class" only to strictly refer to the 'absolute' Class that is NOT a member of anything greater.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To me, given that we cannot find a source for 'causation', then this absolute truth about the ultimate cause is itself 'contradiction' if and only if you begin with Absolutely Nothing as Absolutely true at that origin.

The more appropriate question is why are humans so invested and aggressive in trying to determine ultimate cause and the origin?

You should consider the more realistic answer to the 'why' of the above desperation to find the ultimate cause, i.e. it is purely psychological, i.e. evolutionary psychology.

Remembered you mentioned Michael Shermer, if you read his book,
"Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time"
you will get a clue why people are so desperate to jump [blindly and hastily] on what is the ultimate cause or origin of reality.

My intentional use of it is for physics, not social-psychology, even if it can be related to those subjects as well. I DO have a reason for this proof with respect to a theory. But I cannot even BEGIN to express a theory without this, even if I might have something of worth to say. [This is frustrating and is looking hopeless.]

My point is why people must equivocate from the empirical to the non-empirical [transcendent, thing-in-itself, TOTALITY, GOD, and the likes] is due to the need for consonance to deal an inherent psychological cognitive dissonance.

There is where Kant's quote B397 is applicable,

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.
CPR B397

The inevitable illusion is driven by the solution of consonance to deal with the inherent psychological cognitive dissonance of an existential dilemma.

What Kant implied above is the inherent syllogism involved the equivocation from the transcendent illusion [with no empirical elements, no concept] to the empirical objective reality.
This syllogism is processed subconsciously.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not really, well maybe, well sort of?.

Why I used it was to argue for Totality, not necessarily this universe. So "absolute" is used to speak about what is always 'true' of Totality even if that is 'contradictory' because I think Totality doesn't have a mind (like some God) and would thus only present worlds within it regardless of whether many (or most) would remain contradictory. That is, I think the "consistent" worlds are ONLY a subset of all possible worlds and I reasoned from inside a consistent one in the same way Turing first set up a Universal machine that was 'consistent' to show that you cannot have consistency without inconsistencies on a greater set of things beyond the range of consistent logics (and thus are 'incomplete').

Totality would have within it consciousness.

Dually absolute would be a middle term that describes both nothing and everything thus causing an equivocation through that context alone. It would be equivalent to saying both a brick and rose are equal through the color red.

Yes, you see the nature of 'properties' themselves as being shared as proof that they are not strict 'absolutes' but relative. This is another point why I had to use 'absolutes': a sincere perfect absolute could not even be witnessed or it would have the shared 'property' of having the observer and the observed in the same class. Thus the perfect absolute could be described possibly, but never could be empirically measured.

The absolute can be viewed in fractals as grades of the absolute. For example the perfect circle can be observed approximately through loops. The one is observed through the many. It is the summation of all possible grades, where all things exist at once in a higher time zone, that necessitates gradation as pointing to the absolute.

[Scott Mayers]

STEP ONE:
Would you agree that the Law of Identity is 'absolutely' true in consistent Worlds?

No, I would not. Neither would Schrödinger

All the "laws" of logic are normative, not descriptive - they violate the is-ought gap.

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.

I don't like the term, "normative", given it doesn't itself convey something that I find "normal" personally (especially artificial evalutions that I interpret are NOT-'normal' with respect to reality]. So what might be better said that others here could follow is that you believe the statement of identity is a ''belief" akin to moral or religious ideas rather than as 'describing' anything???

I only see from the abstract of the link that the author is relating this to a quantum mechanical BELIEF to me, that is itself begging. That is, it presumes a strict 'belief' that what is indeterminate IS in fact speaking of this unknown factor as CERTAINLY both true and false, rather than that we can only TREAT or pretend that it IS in fact both true and false.

What I DO agree, if this is meant at all, is that Totality, as I've defined it, IMPLIES that Totality is that which contains nothing 'false'. This means basically that there is NO meaning to 'truth' nor 'falsity' with respect to absolute reality as a whole.

However, I think you also missed my conditional restriction, "in consistent Worlds". This means that these 'laws' are only laws in consistent worlds as proper subclasses of Totality, not the whole of it.

Given we are IN a World with 'laws', and that the meaning of "laws" are themselves begging of 'consistent' rules of behavior, the LAWS of logic require one that assures 'consistency' if only a law itself exists at all. On the level of Totality, NO law is required and why I DO argue how Absolute Nothing can be BOTH 'consistent' and 'inconsistent' because it has no mechanism at that stage for REQUIRING to BE anything constant. In this way, 'logic' itself doesn't exist or is meaningless except if at least SOME consistency exists somewhere.

Since consistency requires ruling out something at the very least (those 'cuts', if I am correct to presume of a link you spoke of earlier), without such rules that demarcate which things will be eliminated, such systems themselves would BE 'indeterminate' and permanently "ineffible". What I CAN assert is that if we BEGIN with a consistent set of rules, it CAN prove something 'inconsistent' exists, even if we may not be able to directly point at it. The "Incompleteness" theorems ARE these types of 'proofs' about Totality being 'inconsistent' while still being realistically inclusive of 'consistent' reality. [That is, Totality is 'contingent' where this means that at least something is consistent AND something is inconsistent under the same absolute domain.]

THEN, with the establishment THAT inconsistency is a fact of reality somewhere, suffices to prove THAT Totality is itself "inconsistent" and in turn MEANS all that is BOTH "consistent AND inconsistent". Consistent and contingent worlds are subclasses of a whole of which that 'whole' is Inconsistent as the most inclusive fact possible.

The first law of ANY 'consistent' world thus still, 'describes' at least some subclass of Totality that is real. If not, then even anything you have to say is itself permanently indeterminate in meaning and description. The laws can be understood as merely displacing determined inconsistencies in a complementary class of the 'consistent' worlds. This treats Tolality as keeping the inconsistencies albeit OUTSIDE of the consistent subclass from the perspective of being inside of those contingent universes It is alright that contradictions or paradoxes exist elsewhere. The act of 'logic' is like sorting out which piles of things will be kept out in trying to determine how to decide what to do when confronted with real barriers, not merely a suggestion about what 'should' or 'should not' be of value.

[Scott Mayers]

...

And, if you just answer my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, the 'this' gets AND goes somewhere. This gets to thee Truth of things. As will be PROVEN IF you just answer my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

...

You 'clarifying questions' are LOADED and more specifically 'leading'. And no doubt you'll ask me what these mean and what the terms in those expressions about meaning mean, and so on, EXPLOSIVELY (meaning that it requires MORE effort to answer exponentially MORE questions). Given I've never been able to get you to agree to ONE thing, what is the probable likelihood that I could even hope you might agree to a set of things I might assert?

[Scott Mayers]

I just asked you the VERY SIMPLE OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTION; Why do you, continue, to ASSUME that there was an 'origin'?

...

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.

You need to learn what 'conditionals' are.

Conditional statement: If "I hit you", then "you got hit by someone".

But "I hit you" requires to be true to guarantee the consequent because "you got hit by someone" may be true OR untrue even if I never actually hit you.


"...as an Origin" conditions the statement. I could rewrite it as

If (there is an origin), then (Absolute Nothingness is an absolute necessity)

[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'!!

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.]

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.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

[Age]

...

And, if you just answer my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, the 'this' gets AND goes somewhere. This gets to thee Truth of things. As will be PROVEN IF you just answer my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

...

You 'clarifying questions' are LOADED

And, ONCE AGAIN, here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of an ASSUMPTION.

Which, ONCE AGAIN, gets in the way of thee ACTUAL Truth of things 'coming to light'.

My CLARIFYING QUESTIONS are NOT "loaded" AT ALL.

In fact the VERY OPPOSITE is True.

My CLARIFYING QUESTIONS are ACTUALLY asked from a Truly OPEN perspective.

and more specifically 'leading'.

My CLARIFYING QUESTIONS are LEADING, but only to THEE ACTUAL Truth of things. That is; When, and IF, you EVER get around to answering them Honestly and OPENLY.

And no doubt you'll ask me what these mean and what the terms in those expressions about meaning mean, and so on, EXPLOSIVELY (meaning that it requires MORE effort to answer exponentially MORE questions).

Well considering where 'you' ACTUALLY ARE along the scale from DECEPTION to TRUTH what do you IMAGINE it would take to bring THEE ACTUAL Truth of things to the forefront for ALL to SEE?

Also, YOUR "no doubt" CLAIM is a HUGE PRESUMPTION, which could be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY TOTALLY WRONG.

Given I've never been able to get you to agree to ONE thing, what is the probable likelihood that I could even hope you might agree to a set of things I might assert?

I think you are COMPLETELY WRONG in your CLAIM that you have NEVER been able to get me to agree to ONE thing.

The probable likelihood that you COULD even hope that I MIGHT agree to a set of things that MIGHT assert is EXTREMELY HIGH. That is; if what you MIGHT assert is ABSOLUTELY THEE Truth of things.

All you have to say is an irrefutable Truth, that is; a sound, valid argument, then there is NOTHING I could do BUT to AGREE with you.

By the way, if I do AGREE with some things you have said ALREADY, then I do NOT necessarily inform you of this. Just like I do NOT inform you of some of things you say that I do NOT agree with.

Mostly I just question/challenge people on what I KNOW is THEE ACTUAL Truth.

[Age]

I just asked you the VERY SIMPLE OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTION; Why do you, continue, to ASSUME that there was an 'origin'?

...

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.

Conditional statement: If "I hit you", then "you got hit by someone".

Conditional statement 2: If you said what you ACTUALLY MEANT, and NOT something else which you did NOT mean, then "that would be FAR LESS CONFUSING".

But "I hit you" requires to be true to guarantee the consequent because "you got hit by someone" may be true OR untrue even if I never actually hit you.


"...as an Origin" conditions the statement.

But the words "as an" do NOT condition a statement at all. Well NOT in the way that you are claiming here anyway. See, the words 'as an' could actually 'condition' a statement in the EXACT OPPOSITE way, which you claim here, 'as an example'.

I have just provide PROOF, as an example.


The 'example' here, that is; the word is NOT 'a condition' but instead 'an actual fact'. The example, that is; the sentence, PROVES this FACT.

I could rewrite it as

If (there is an origin), then (Absolute Nothingness is an absolute necessity)

Which would have been FAR MORE CLEARER, IF you did.

OBVIOUSLY, just saying "... as on Origin", does NOT necessarily mean that this is a 'condition' in YOUR CLAIM at all. In fact the OPPOSITE could be said AND SEEN.

IF there was an "origin" to EVERY thing, then that does NOT absolutely necessitate Absolutely Nothingness AT ALL. But EXPLAINING WHY THIS IS SO, to you, would take some time, as you BELIEVE otherwise.

And by the way, did you RECOGNIZE and NOTICE that what I just wrote here provides MORE ACTUAL PROOF for what you are CLAIMING here than what you have ACTUALLY SHOWN so far. That is; On first glance, without ANY CLARIFICATION being sort.

[Age]

If (there is an origin), then (Absolute Nothingness is an absolute necessity)

Do you have ANY actual proof or evidence for this claim of yours?

If yes, then will you provide that evidence or proof?

[Skepdick]

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".

I don't like the term, "normative", given it doesn't itself convey something that I find "normal" personally (especially artificial evalutions that I interpret are NOT-'normal' with respect to reality].

The reason that you find such things "normal" merely speaks to the axioms you've chosen to accept.

So what might be better said that others here could follow is that you believe the statement of identity is a ''belief" akin to moral or religious ideas rather than as 'describing' anything???

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

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

And therefore it serves one purpose alone - to hold you accountable to the inferences that you make in accord with the system you claim to be practicing.

All of this is subject to Wittgenstein's rule-following paradox.

I only see from the abstract of the link that the author is relating this to a quantum mechanical BELIEF to me, that is itself begging.

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

However, I think you also missed my conditional restriction, "in consistent Worlds". This means that these 'laws' are only laws in consistent worlds as proper subclasses of Totality, not the whole of it.

Your conditional restriction is meaningless. Can you tell me what what consistency is in Reality without appealing to any axioms of Logic?

Given we are IN a World with 'laws', and that the meaning of "laws" are themselves begging of 'consistent' rules of behavior.

There you go again with that meaningless word "consistent" again... If I am constantly contradicting myself does this mean I am consistently inconsistent?

the LAWS of logic require one that assures 'consistency' if only a law itself exists at all.

No, they don't. Logic doesn't require anything! Humans require things from Logic!

You have CHOSEN a system of logic with the non-contradiction axiom.
You could have CHOSEN a system of logic without it.

Any "requirement" you insist exists is only by convention.

On the level of Totality, NO law is required and why I DO argue how Absolute Nothing can be BOTH 'consistent' and 'inconsistent' because it has no mechanism at that stage for REQUIRING to BE anything constant. In this way, 'logic' itself doesn't exist or is meaningless except if at least SOME consistency exists somewhere.

That word "consistency" again....

Since consistency requires ruling out something at the very least (those 'cuts', if I am correct to presume of a link you spoke of earlier), without such rules that demarcate which things will be eliminated, such systems themselves would BE 'indeterminate' and permanently "ineffible".

They are ineffable. UNLESS we choose different semantics!

The semantics of Classical logic do not allow me to say that things are both true AND false due to the non-contradiction axiom.

But the semantics of Quantum logic don't impose such restrictions on me! Qubuts can be in superpositions of True AND False.

So something that is "inconsistent" in System A is perfectly consistent in System B!

What I CAN assert is that if we BEGIN with a consistent set of rules, it CAN prove something 'inconsistent' exists, even if we may not be able to directly point at it.

You can't determine whether the rules are 'consistent' because your notion of "consistency" is poorly defined!!!

Consistent with respect to what standard for "inconsistency"?

I CAN point you at something that's "inconsistent" - any Qubit in superposition!

The "Incompleteness" theorems ARE these types of 'proofs' about Totality being 'inconsistent' while still being realistically inclusive of 'consistent' reality. [That is, Totality is 'contingent' where this means that at least something is consistent AND something is inconsistent under the same absolute domain.]

...

The act of 'logic' is like sorting out which piles of things will be kept out in trying to determine how to decide what to do when confronted with real barriers, not merely a suggestion about what 'should' or 'should not' be of value.

By virtue of preferring consistency over inconsistency you are singling value! A bias. Choice!