Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 7:49 am
What do the 'double equal' symbols mean, to you, here?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am Given that we are 'something', if you assume that 'nothing' is not real. We have...
Something == Something OR Nothing
Why IF someone else ASSUMES that 'nothing' is not real, then how and why does this, to you, then mean
Something == Something OR Nothing
When did we jump from "you assume that 'nothing' is not real" to " where "nothing" is defined as "not-something" ".
'Not-something' could be very different to 'not real'.
Also, IF Something == Something OR Nothing, then does this not, to you, infer that 'Nothing' is actually some 'thing'?
Why did you write this, and also write, "Yet, note that ...", as though it is some irrefutable fact?
If you did not mean it as though it is some irrefutable fact, then what did you mean by writing that?
Also, how did you arrive at the conclusion "Nothing == Something AND Nothing" and "Something == Something OR Nothing", and what is the ACTUAL difference here?
______________________
Who defines 'matter' as this?
I certainly have NEVER defined 'matter' this way. So who and/or what EXACTLY is the 'we', which 'you' refer to here?
How do you KNOW 'most' think this?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am But most think that "space" is somehow less real with confusion in the same way as the above but opposite:
I really hope you have explained what the double equal symbol means, to you, here.
Because I can not yet see how 'matter', which is a physical 'thing', could be related to Nothing, as it appears here to me.
I do not yet see how the words after the word 'since' logically follow on from the preceding words.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am ......since matter is dependent upon space, as a 'nothing' to lie in while space still exists without matter.
Also, to me 'space' is dependent upon 'matter' equally as much as 'matter' is dependent upon 'space'. And, how EXACTLY could 'space' still exist without 'matter'?
Furthermore, 'matter' could also still exist without 'space'.
Is this an ALREADY PROVEN FACT or just what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true?
But what is 'space' if it is NOT an absolute 'nothing'?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am we have "space", as a form of relative 'nothing' to mean that it MUST exist if matter exists.
Also, IF there is a thinking organism, then there MUST exist 'matter', and 'space'. Therefore, we have 'matter', in a form of an absolute 'something' and as a relative 'something', which means that 'matter' MUST exist if 'space' exists. What is also logically followed and reasoned is 'space' also MUST exist if 'matter' exists.
The plain and very simple FACT IS: If there is a contemplating being, then space AND matter MUST exist together. And, what can be logically concluded is that space AND matter MUST co-exist together ALWAYS.
But 'space' is NOT included within 'matter'. Unless of course one wants to include it this way. But, if one did, then that would just be illogical AND absurd.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am But IF space exists apriori, then it IS possible for "space", as a "nothing" to exist as....
(Space) == Something OR Nothing. .......since space can exist by itself OR included within matter, as a 'something'.
By the way, 'matter' COULD exist by itself just as equally as 'space' COULD.
But, IF either did solely exist, then there could NEVER be a wondering, pondering, thinking being.
There is a wondering, pondering, thinking being.
Therefore, 'matter' NOR 'space' exist alone.
Also because BOTH 'matter' AND 'space' are NEEDED for change to occur, there ALWAYS exist BOTH 'matter' AND 'space'.
By the way, 'space' is OBVIOUSLY a 'something', which NO argument is needed for.
'Space' is just a relatively sized absolute nothing.
But there is NO actual conflict here. Unless, of course, one sees a conflict and/or 'tries to' demonstrate a conflict.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am The above demonstrates two opposite logical interpretions of 'nothing' that conflict unless we interpret them coexisting in Totality necessarily.
I, again, hope you have explained what the double equal sign symbol means, to you.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am In fact, the above suggests that with respect to Totality, NOTHING == SOMETHING.
_______________________
But this is NOT relatively 'contradicting' AT ALL, to me. Although I can CLEARLY SEE you have made it 'contradictory' and how 'it' could be seen to be to 'you', adult human beings.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am While this is relatively 'contradicting' to us for any particular ordered world, like ours,
But maybe if 'you' LOOKED AT the REAL 'world' instead of "our world", then you would probably SEE things much CLEARER.
There is NO contradiction at all in the One and ONLY Truly 'ordered world'.
The if/then sentence here does NOT logically work.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am if you interpret NOTHING as outside of Totality, then there is NO 'outside' because Totality is all there is.
There is NO 'outside' of Totality - FULL STOP. If one interprets there is, no matter if it that is NOTHING or ANYTHING ELSE, then that has NO bearing on the conclusion that there JUST IS NO 'outside' of ALL-THERE-IS/Totality.
People will NOT listen to you just because you tell them SOME thing. You have to PROVIDE the ACTUAL PROOF of what you say. So, what ACTUAL PROOF will you PROVIDE for there is NO 'outside' of Totality?
Just because YOU SAY; 'Totality is all there is', then this does NOT at all MEAN that Absolutely Everything exists.
If you want to say that 'Absolutely Everything exists', then I suggest providing some ACTUAL PROOF for this. THEN that would MEAN Absolutely Everything ACTUALLY does exist.
'I' do NOT define 'an absolute state of Nothingness' as 'inconsistent' AT ALL.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am And given that the concept, "Absolute Nothing" then is also true by this meaning, while it seems conflicting, it is not with respect to Totality because the essence of an absolute state of Nothingness would lack even 'consistency' there without a problem because we define it as 'inconsistent' by
By the way, the concept, 'Absolute Nothing', does NOT seem conflicting to me AT ALL.
In fact, from having the concept of 'Absolute Nothing', 'How the Universe actual works' can be much more CLEARLY SEEN and much better UNDERSTOOD FULLY.
See, an absolute state of Nothingness DOES NOT and COULD NOT exist. But there is OBVIOUSLY limited spaces of Absolute Nothing, which HAVE TO exist.
Still waiting for CLARIFICATION.
Well that is certainly one conclusion.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am Thus, on the level of Totality, "inconsistency" rules it AS being Nothing. It is breaking no 'law' because laws are necessarily 'consistent' and we have this:
Inconsist Reality == Inconsistent AND Consistent Realities collectively.
To us, we cannot determine literally THAT we were born nor die, even where we, being alive, we can use this to refer to others.
WHY do 'you' use the words 'us' and 'we' in relation to 'cannot', as though you KNOW, for sure?
Who or what is giving 'you' the "right" to speak for 'us', especially in regards to what 'we' can or can NOT do?
LOLScott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am So...
IF AND ONLY IF reality has a ORIGIN, it can only ultimately 'begin' in as ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Besides the ABSOLUTELY faulty way in which you have "arrived" at this 'conclusion', the fact that this conclusion ALREADY existed within 'you' previously and which you ALREADY BELIEVED was true, before you 'tried to' formulate an argument that, supposedly, backs up and supports this "argument", the "conclusion" that "IF 'reality' has an ORIGIN, then it could ONLY 'ULTIMATELY' begin in, or from, an ABSOLUTE NOTHING is about as absurd and illogical as one could get.
To PROVE this, just EXPLAIN HOW some thing could come from NO thing.
If you can do this in a non absurd and logically reasoned way, then FULL MARKS to you. I await, patiently.
For 'reality' to have an ORIGIN, then it would first have to be logically and physically [empirically] POSSIBLE. And, from what I have observed, so far, an ORIGIN to REALITY is NOT logically NOR empirically POSSIBLE.
In fact, because of CAUSALITY, ITSELF, and CAUSALITY ALONE, something from nothing is NOT logically possible NOR empirically possible. In fact, CAUSALITY infers that it is IMPOSSIBLE, logically AND empirically, for some thing to come from NO thing.
By the way, what the ACTUAL Thing IS, which causes/creates REALITY, is VERY EASY to SEE, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW, that is; once you learn and KNOW how to LOOK AT and SEE things properly AND correctly.
Everything exists, infinitely AND eternally, and this has ALREADY been PROVEN, logically, AND will be PROVEN empirically, sufficiently enough.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am This is a conditional truth. The only alternative is INFINITELY EVERYTHING exists.
So, only just a couple of lines back you write that "IF reality has an ORIGIN, then ...", but now you ASSERT that 'Absolute Nothing' HAS TO BE INCLUDED as 'some origin'.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am You cannot assert that which lies outside of Totality where it is infinitely inclusive from being trapped inside of it. As such, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING == INFINTELY EVERYTHING and has to include at least an Absolute Nothing as 'some origin'.
The ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, within that head, are appearing much more STRONGER and much more CLEARER NOW.
LOL
Double LOLScott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:26 am It just has no 'time' as we interpret 'existence' requiring for us to have meaning.