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

[Scott Mayers]

I will delve down to the MOST 'basics' there is. After all it is from the very depths, deep down HERE, where True under-standing comes from, and where 'lies', themselves, are bared for ALL to SEE. So, YOUR CLAIM that "NO one is willing to strip down to the basics" is NOT true, as I have ALREADY STRIPPED DOWN to the MOST FUNDAMENTAL BASICS of ALL-THERE-IS.

Why do you not come and join 'me'?

I am not against you as a person. I am saying that you are dragging in issues that are drastically irrelevant in the way, as I've described to you before, LIKE a child going through the two-year-old stage of asking 'why' to everything that while appropriate to and for the child, requires the parent to be extremely patient to address things that cannot always be done practically. [And no, I'm not calling you a child.]

You begun here in an above post by dragging in the definition of 'philosophy' when the context I used is normally understood without concern. If I have to break down each and every thing you 'ask', I'm forced to DIGRESS off the topic at hand. Then, for other readers who might be interested, would be turned off from joining in because the lack of 'continuity' of the discussion about the OP. It basically derails the conversation. You also did this in "I have a box.." which was itself meant only to discuss the concept of the unknown, something you should appreciate in light of your complaints. Instead, like a record scratch (or the sound of crickets?) the concerns you raise need to be addressed separately first, not in the context of the topic of the thread. There, 'philosophy' and 'assumptions' are contentious with you. I don't have time to have to try to determine where your head is at when I've discussed these issues with you before to no concrete settlement. So your concerns are 'trolling' ....meaning here specifically, that you are preventing me passage from moving anywhere unless I appeal first and foremost to your demands about something that we have not found closure on in other threads. I already HEAR your opinions but cannot handle them because you are extensively drawing the same complaints out related to your claims about what is 'assumptions'. That one topic alone has wasted space and conversation in a WAY that I cannot tell if you are intentionally trying to derail me for some reason or are being serious but naive. I have to gamble on the practical possibility that you are acting 'political', like how Donald Trump demonstrates when he denies the obvious. [He is not actually as stupid as his behavior appears because he is INTENTIONALLY lying to distract attention away from the actual issues. It hints that he is hiding something.] For me, this is HOW IT APPEARS. And I don't have the time nor willingness to play. I HAVE to ignore you or you 'win' for the success of distraction, whether you intend that or not. Go ahead and keep writing. I am not censoring you, though I am 'censuring' (rebuking) you. If you have something more friendly to respond to that lacks the cues of distraction, I'll respond. Otherwise, I have to pass over what you initially say in a those mile-long posts. It's just practical sense.

[Age]

See, IF, and when, 'you', adult human beings START DOING what I SUGGEST, then the VERY OPPOSITE of what you CLAIM here is what WILL HAPPEN and OCCUR. That is; Unity, or better still, and better worded, REUNIFICATION WILL BEGIN.

Unless you're wrong about the universe, and there really is no unified mind or whatever unified something you're thinking of.

I have NEVER mentioned ANYWHERE ANY thing about some, so called, "unified mind".

Also, here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of one who comes to, and/or makes up, "conclusions" about what I am, supposedly, 'thinking', YET they do NOT EVEN YET KNOW what I have I ACTUALLY BEEN TALKING ABOUT, NOR SAYING.

These people do NOT even KNOW what I have been SAYING, although my words are CLEARLY WRITTEN DOWN, before them, as is CLEARLY EVIDENCED, and PROVEN, but they STILL BELIEVE that they KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, as PROVEN by this person's next statement, and CLAIM.

That's probably one of the oldest delusions in the book, stop making baseless assumptions.

LOL What are 'you' basing YOUR ASSUMPTION here on, EXACTLY?

And 'what' is " probably one of the oldest delusions 'in the book' "?

Also, what 'book' are 'you' referring to here?

By the way, I am NOT making ANY ASSUMPTIONS here.

I am BASING what I have ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT, on what can and will be ACTUALLY used as EVIDENCE to back up, support, AND PROVE what I SAY, AND CLAIM.

Remember that 'you' are STILL AT the DO NOT EVEN KNOW what I am ACTUALLY SAYING YET, let alone KNOWING the ACTUAL MEANING behind my words AND sentences. I suggest that 'you' CLARIFY this FIRST, BEFORE 'you' even START to ASSUME ANY thing, which is going on in the 'background', 'in the KNOWING', which I am USING to CREATE to 'that', which I have set out to create and am Creating.

'you' just saying, "stop making baseless assumptions", is about one of the MOST 'baseless ASSUMPTIONS', itself. As can be and will be PROVEN True.

Unless, OF COURSE, you would like to PROVE 'me' WRONG here. Which, by all means if you do, feel completely and absolutely FREE to go right on ahead and do that.

If you would like to PROVE 'me' WRONG, then just EXPLAIN to ALL the readers here:
1. What is, SUPPOSED, to be 'my' ASSUMPTION here, from YOUR perspective, and which you CLAIM is "baseless"?
2. After you have done that, then EXPLAIN, HOW and WHY that, supposed, ASSUMPTION IS 'baseless'.

SHOW 'us', and let 'us' SEE, IF YOUR ASSUMPTION here is BASED on ABSOLUTELY ANY thing or on NOTHING AT ALL.

'We' are ALL WAITING, for 'you' NOW.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't have an issue with what I'm talking about. I am troubled that I keep getting side-tracked to have to deal with OTHER people's works.
Philosophy doesn't require one to take wholesale some other philosopher or group of philosopher's definitions that tie in a whole bunch of garbage, like how selecting only from two or three parties in which one is forced to accept their wholesale platform as set in stone, something I hate about politics.

I looked at your source definitions and do not fit in with any of them even though I agree to some parts of each. As such, they are 'party platform'-like as I described. And you are trying to fit me in with a selection of yours that you may interpret as sufficiently organizing philosophical views of people with clarity but they don't. This goes the same for interpretation of other people's works. So it makes it worse for me to argue in terms that perfectly defeat me for not fitting in with any of those prior author's ways of classifying things.

I don't need research on those 'platform'-like beliefs and if I had to digress to them, I may as well not be here at all. I'm having a similar issue with arguing here with others regarding politics and religion. No one is willing to strip down to the basics. Even 'Age' here who pretends she does, proves to be perfectly oppositional regardless of whether she appeared to 'agree' or 'disagree' to something prior.

I presumed you are familiar with the critical requirement of 'literature review' related to your problem statement of your thesis.

The analytical features of a literature review might:

Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.
The purpose of a literature review is to:

Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].
https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/literaturereview

Since your thesis' Problem Statement' is so fundamental and wide, to maintain intellectual protocol you have to survey and exhaust all prior scholarships and philosophies that are related to the problem statement of your thesis. The most critical expectation of this exhaustive process is to avoid duplication and to gather information that will support your thesis.

For my own thesis on the fundamental of reality, I have strove to exhaust in general all that are relevant to question on the fundamentality of reality. I will feel terrible with a cognitive dissonance if I had avoided what is known to be necessary.

As far as I know [after exhaustive research], I believe your thesis question [philosophical] will reduce ultimately into either Philosophical Realism or Philosophical Anti-Realism, there is no other perspectives deeper than that. I am not insisting you must agree, but I would recommend more research to understand this two basic dichotomy of philosophical thoughts.

The other which I recommend is 'Know Thyself' i.e. the generic [not you personally] on what is going on when one feel the consonance [agreement] to a certain philosophical view that is derived by oneself or that of others.
Again I am not imposing the above but merely to point it out for your discretion.

Here is Kant's Copernican Revolution where he turned around [180 degrees]
from your sort of chasing after things [or nothing] out there
to understanding the reality of things from the human perspective.

It is a difficult to understand quote because each variable [.in capital]mentioned therein is merely a tip of an iceberg [one need a dictionary for them], but hope you understand [not necessary agree with] his point; in [mine]. If not, never mind.

Kant noted the success of Mathematics and Science which are human oriented;

The examples of Mathematics and Natural Science, which by a single and sudden revolution have become what they now are, seem to me sufficiently remarkable to suggest our considering what may have been the essential features in the changed point of view by which they have so greatly benefited. [.B xvi]

Their [Mathematics and Natural Science] success should incline us, at least by way of experiment, to imitate their procedure, so far as the Analogy which, as species of Rational Knowledge, they bear to Metaphysics may permit.

So Kant proposed we transposed the fundamental principles of Mathematics and Natural Science to Metaphysics [ontology].

Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.

We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.

We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator [human] to revolve and the stars to remain at rest.
[.B xvii]

[The Copernican Revolution]
A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.
If Intuition must conform to the constitution of the Objects, I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the objects] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.

Since I cannot rest in these Intuitions if they are to become known, but must relate them as Representations to Something as their Object, and determine this latter through them, either
[.a] I must assume that the Concepts, by means of which I obtain this Determination, conform to the Object, or else
[.b] I assume that the Objects, or what is the same Thing, that the Experience in which alone, as Given Objects, they can be known, conform to the Concepts.

In the former case [a], I am again in the same perplexity as to how I can know anything a priori in regard to the Objects.
In the latter [.b] case the outlook is more hopeful.
For Experience is itself a species of Knowledge which involves Understanding; and Understanding has Rules which I must presuppose as being in me prior to Objects being Given to me, and therefore as being a priori.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My simple argument here places a foundation to Totality without a need for some 'god' nor 'human' at this place.
This place, for not being able to find a term for it that people cannot seem to push 'time' into its meaning that I do not, is "Absolutely Nothing" and contrasts itself from "Absolutely Something" and "Absolutely Everything", as the only closed set of possible options (without delving into things like levels of infinites or infinitesimals).
I also do not agree to the physicist's whom I partially agree with but who believe that we can only speak on THIS Universe for the reason I don't approve of "absolutely some-SPECIFIC-thing" of Totality: it is politics and religious to me to assume ONE universe without it implying these 'special' states. [Any finite set of 'things' regarding Totality is a special subset of the whole, or a universal in terms of logic.]

The reason 'absolutes' are needed is because I am wanting to begin at the core, or root, or origin, or background which are universally necessary FOR 'causation' issues.
In order to try to show how Nature operates universally in an argument that intends to prove you CAN find a universal logical way to construct reality WITHOUT resort to our biased pre-observed world, requires dealing with the most general of the general of the general class that encompasses ALL universals (universes).
I know we are biased to communicate from where we are, but the logic here is to show that something CAN derive from no apriori Something which begs what this 'something' (or set of somethings) are.
When you argue for an absolute strict state of 'nothing', it lacks the issues that reduce to religious or political bias that has kept logic as though it is a proprietary HUMAN-owned calculator.
If Nature has no 'author', this non-author concept has to be NOTHING.
The reason ancient science and secular thought HAS reduced to the modern virus of religions is due most specifically to the inability to separate the 'human' bias from the picture.

I note from the above, you are chasing after some thing [loosely] which is "Totality" which origin is 'absolute nothing'.
This totality which origin is absolutely nothing is as you had claimed in independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exists regardless there are humans or not.
This fit precisely in the fundamental principle of Philosophical Realism, i.e. [mine]

Philosophical realism is a broad family of philosophies regarding the properties and contents of reality.
Realism may refer to a number of positions within metaphysics and epistemology, which express that a given thing exists in reality independently of [human] knowledge or understanding.
This can apply to items such as the physical world, the past and future, other minds, and the self, as well as to those such as universals, mathematical truths, moral truths, and thought itself.

In your case the above basic principle is applied to the external physical world and its origin, which is absolute nothing.

The only other alternative is Philosophical Anti-Realism which main principle is, a given thing exists in reality interdependently with human knowledge and understanding, which is Kant's Copernican Revolution [.I agree] and others [some I don't agree with] of the like.

Do you have an alternative to the above two distinct philosophical stance? I would be very interested if you can come up with something else which is not reducible to either.

I don't think it a stretch to extend the concept of Absolute Nothing from mere Nothing because technically all forms of 'nothings' relative or absolute, are literally identical by OUR perspective.
When someone presumes unicorns' as non-existing, they mean it is not in OUR world, not that it as a concept would be absurd. Narwals have spiral horns, horses are the basis for this creature, ...so unicorns are realistically possible and thus cannot be ruled out in all possible worlds. This is a 'relative nothing' because it COULD exist still in another world but we cannot determine it.

As I had stated before, whatever you postulated as possibly real in reality, it must have only possible empirical elements or their combinations, e.g. horns, horses, thus unicorns are empirically possible. To confirm it is really real, we need to empirical evidence to verify and justify it exists as real.

But what you are proposing from PURE REASON without empirical elements, i.e. a totality beyond human with absolute nothing as the origin is not empirically possible at all. It is like postulating a square-circle exists.

Even the religious person's God and their particular (special) history assigned to it, though you and I would agree is 'false', fits into the class 'relative nothing' because it is made up through the human minds.
Our minds are real, even if one is delusionally seeing things.
BECAUSE I am trying to argue from an UNBIASED position that doesn't rule out the strangest of people's beliefs about what might be, we need a PLACE or SUBCLASS to contain all that is 'empty' or devoid of meaning or reality that if understood fits under the same banner of Totality, would NOT be tossed out prematurely.
This is why I opted for "Totality" to be defined as being absolutely containing of all, including absolutely nothing.
That way, when we deem something irrational or false, that it doesn't bias these to at be in the COMPLEMENT of our idea of 'true' but still within Totality.

That is the point, your PLACE or sub-class is merely a thought based on PURE REASON which you cannot reason to deduce it to be empirically and philosophically real.
Your 'PLACE' or 'subclass' is like Kant's noumenon used as a placeholder for the ultimate of all phenomenon, but the noumenon [for negative use as a limit] cannot be empirically real like the phenomenon. It is only a thought.

Totality is the only concept we can consider 'Absolutely One' in the set of absolutes I gave that is complete and exhaustive of what is possible to all universes (or non-existing ones). Then the question about absolute nothing versus absolutely everything can be addressed.

If you reflect deeper, your TOTALITY can only be a thought that is reasoned from PURE REASON without any solid empirical elements at all, thus impossible to be real.

I argue reality from the Absolute Nothing in the same way Set theory uses the 'empty set'. All 'nothings' (IN FACT) are identical but our judgement of what is or is not is SPECIFICALLY 'nothing' through science proper or one's capacity to reason from what we know, MAY BE WRONG because we cannot escape THIS universe to prove so. To me, assuming Absolutely Everything should be easier for most to identify as also the Absolute One, as Totality is, given you can intellectually interpret a continuum of divisions of this one. So then the only remaining concept is the Absolute Nothing. But if you agree to Totality as being Absolutely One, and Absolutely Everything, it has to also have Absolute Nothing because,

(Absolute Nothing) x (Absolute Infinity) = Absolute One [each and all of these as Totality by this form(ula)].

While this is confusing if we think of something locally (relatively), it isn't with respect to the extremes. This HAS to be the case whether I get agreement on this or not, because Totality is NOT some 'god'. Even admitting of ONE 'special' thing, or SET of 'special things' (like the '42' things from "The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Universe" mockingly suggested. [See that link's Wikipedia entry, , under the subsection, "42, or The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything" for a bit more on this if you haven't read it.]

Given you are NOT religious, as I, then interpret this to mean that reality can come from NO SOURCE, of which I just label it as "Absolutely Nothing". I choose to use the term to be inclusive though of those who do NOT think of this as the case, like one who defines their 'god' as having this property (at maximum minus the particular history as it relates to humans). Because science is a 'politic', meaning that it exists as a collective of people who vote on what they 'observe' and never can you find ALL people to agree to the same interpretations, say for instance, to define Pluto as a 'planet' or not, I need a way to define the most universal concepts we agree to in principle to all to make a connection of logic and science into ONE shared system.

The 'laws of science' are a subset of 'universal laws', which are in turn at minimal, a subset of Absolute 'law' (or inclusively as 'lawless' when Absolute Nothing is considered). Scientists would NOT look at my theory, not even a glance, without it being put through a set of 'censors' (the review personel) who define what IS and IS NOT prerequisite to 'observations' and to the conventions expected of the institutes. [I don't get why anyone would NOT recognize the 'politics' given even this much as accepted is true?]

You don't have to believe that there are 'objects' outside of your solipsistic perspective of the world because these have to be true of ALL things, including whatever you are perceiving is 'true' for yourself. Thus you MAY think of different philosophical approaches but when discussing absolutely universal things, it all comes down to the same thing. I didn't think that I'd have to learn each person's perspective view here any more than I should require having to learn each and every religion in order to explain something from each BIASED view because I'm being most universally inclusive. If one argues against it, fine. But then they are just implying and imposing other philosophical dialect as relevant to this and/or are wanting to debate terms. Some tend to just recycle the same crap over and over in a way that I can't tell if they are just toying with me or being serious. [Age here has been doing that and why I cannot continue to appeal to her posts.]

I know this is my onus to prove and certainly am not an expert at social appeal in my writing. So I am sure that I am as much at fault here. But I'm burning out on this given, like I said, I cannot get this initialized. The amount of depth that I'd have to go into would take hundreds of years at this rate. And if that has to be the case, then I have to determine whether I should bother. I cannot do this alone any more than all of the world has built up knowledge of millions to get where we are today. And I cannot get past this essential part. I am sure that even if I don't, somebodies probably will at some future time if the politics are able to be removed. Maybe I'm in the wrong time and place for this? So be it. I just need to get further than this to even be able to properly present my theory even in an outline before I die. [And I don't think I have more than 10 years at tops given my health.]

I don't know what else to say. I asked some to just postulate it (a pretense) for the sake of at least seeing how it MIGHT lead to something more and that gets shot down too. So I'm discouraged here.

The way set theory [conditioned upon its specific FSK] resort to an empty set is merely by thought and confined as a thought which cannot be verified as really real.

My point is all philosophical theories are reduced to either Philosophical Realism or Philosophical Anti-Realism.
Perhaps what is critical for you is to exhaust all there is to be understood [not necessary agree] what Philosophical Realism or Philosophical Anti-Realism represent and WHY your hypothesis do not fit into either. [Just a recommendation].

Since you mentioned re health, etc.,
If you have not tried mindfulness meditation, I would recommend that to achieve a state of equanimity where you will continue to strive for your thesis but at the same time without invoking any stressful conditions.

As for health, try and get a grip on what is Metabolic Syndrome which is a root to most of the general health problems.
Here is one interesting talk;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx-QrilOoSM
To be effective, it would be better to exhaust all there is to know about MS and adopt some of the recommendations.

[Skepdick]

You have a misunderstanding that I don't care to delve into far here. If you disagree, then so be it.

Ditto.

But unless you CAN lay out all the possible initial options so that I can see whatever you could possibly mean, then I cannot argue further.

The initial "option" is choice.

Do I want to admit an identity axiom in my system?
Do I want to admit a non-contradiction axiom in my system?

If you answer "no" to both, you end up with a Schrödinger logic with inductive types.

You are asserting 'alternates' where none is needed at this level

That's a sweeping statement. Needed by whom and for what purpose?

They then make a lot of political-like campaignes of destruction of the others by misappropriating the meanings. To me, comes across as a type of argument for inclusion of Biblical 'theory' along side Evolution in text books simply on the basis that they CLAIM they have an 'alternate science' foundation which matters.

The irony. From where I am looking people who believe in the "foundations" of logic are dogmatic.

Science is empirical and inductive. Inductive is something that logic isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism

Yes, you can start speaking Chinese, for instance. The artificial forms of communicating do not mean that the foundational math or logic differs underneath.

Since I am an anti-foundationalist it literally means exactly that.

All "foundations" are subject to choice. Different "foundations" can always be chosen.

The OPINIONS of people's methods of reasoning differ about how nature operates. Yet do you actually think that nature has different physical laws just because we cannot agree to them?

In so far as nature has any "laws" our knowledge and understanding of them keeps changing. You either understand the "law" of gravity according to Newton's formulation; or you understand it according to Einstein's formulation.

One nature - two laws. Oops?

You are welcome to disagree. But put your money where your mouth is and PROVE what you mean.

That's a rather ignorant request. In what axiom-schema would you. like me to PROVE this to you?
Proof theory deals strictly with syntax/structure.
Model theory deals with semantics/meaning.

Tell me what a system would be like that has NO rule about the identity of things.

It would be like a Schrödinger logic. I told you that already.

Note it is the FACT that an IDENTITY rule exists that matters. You also need a rule of distinction that helps define what identity of one thing is that differs from another, AND, you need to do this in a way that 'playing the game' of this system STICKS to those rules (called, 'consistency'). You are debating the 'art' of reasoning, not the 'science' of it.

I am debating against a flawed assumption in the "foundations" of logic. In the spirit of Quine's Two dogmas of empiricism.

The 'art' would be like whether one opts to use C++ or Python to code with. But the underlying logic of ALL computers that use these, is the architectural laws that themselves MUST be consistent to the physics that all built computers are required to do.

They are consistent with physics. Classical Logic isn't.

The three basic rules of logic are just the foundation and DEFINITION of 'logic'

They are the DEFINITION of Classical Logic..
They are NOT the definition of Schrödinger logic, Linear Logic, Temporal logic etc etc.

that demarcate it from mere chaotic inconsistent or random thought.

It's not random, just non-deterministic.

I doubt you are using 'trivially' based on logical means: "Trivial" in logic means accepting 'contradiction'

Maybe in your logic, not in mine. That's why we should stick to the English meaning of these words. So you can stop pretending that Classical Logic is normative.

Ironically, what I am arguing on logic of this thread REQUIRES recognizing "inconsistency" with respect to Totality.

It really doesn't matter as much as you think it does.

If the system can prove P in 7 operations/inductive steps, but it can prove not-P in 6 operations/inductive steps, that's not an inconsistent system.

It's just means P is true @ 7 and not-P is true @ 6.

Temporal logic.

So if you disagree with my acceptance of the traditional set of the three rules because you think the language is arbitary, then how does it matter THAT I begin on those rules as is? I have no problem showing how something CAN be both 'inconsistent' AND 'real'. The Incompleteness theorems required to prove these. So I don't know your problem here?

Well, If you know of things that are both inconsistent AND real, it trivially means that a logic which forbids inconsistencies discards parts of reality.

Your logic is insufficient for describing reality because it cannot express inconsistencies.

A 'logic' can be any set of devices or distinct tools that you use to contruct another logic, just as languages like C++ compilers (or for a better example, Java) are built by 'splitting' the various different architectures FROM a generic higher-order language.

Programming languages are just different models of computation. They differ in semantics, but they are functionally equivalent.

The program when compiled actually makes a SET of different programs that get LINKED when run to the particular architecture of the computer hardware you are running it on.

I don't need to compile a program to make it meaningful. It's meaningful at the time I expressed it. The compilation is an exercise in making the computer understand what I mean.

What's your distinction? Superposition means that two distinct things operate simultaneously. This is just 'splitting' something into two parallel logics.

Look at the mental gymnastics you are having to resort to because your logic doesn't support P and not-P!

in quantum physics a Qubit is not "two distinct things"! It's a single entity.

And now we have to split reality into two just because you've chosen a shitty logic. That's why I pointed you to Gentzen's cut-free (inductive) proofs.

A computer still begins with the 'master' core when running a program and then separates two tasks to run in parallel.

That would be just indifferent to running two programs through one Operating System. The OS is the 'master' control program to the two simultaneous programs you might have running on it.

A classical computer - yes. A quantum computer - no.

Not to mention that parallelism in classical computers is really just a cunning illusion. It's time-sharing.

I know the architecture of Q-bits. (spelling?) It is actually just a system based on adding a variable (one) to the normal binary set of truth-values, logically. Architectually, however, they artificially create the illusion of this by using loops that permit the -1, 0, or +1 values AND add a set of these loops in a package to run parallel.

You continue with the mental gymnastics.

When you are using photons as your implementation of a Qubit, where is this "running in parallel" happening exactly?

That way, it can do more than one calculation at once, with the added power of three rather than two as in normal binary. Anything that can be done in these computers can be done in the default binary.

So you are insisting that P=NP....

They are just designed in a way to do more at once very quickly.

Ahhhhh, so to you time doesn't matter. If one system can do X in 10^10000000 years and another system can do X in 1 second, they are "the same" to you?

The faults it has increases when adding new values to the architecture. So contrary to the hopeful, we will not ever have the magical machine type where actual 'superposition' is meant. It too has to be driven by some initiating logical master based on binary logic even if it could be designed.

Ever heard the saying "Perfect is the enemy of good"? Some times "fast with some errors" is better than "slow without errors"

The 'Qubit' (Q-bit) architecture requires more energy for that extra bit and adds difficulty for circuitry designs to allow for alterating currents and prention of cross-talk (when electrons accelerate, they change the magnetic fields that can pentrate even insulators and so they require both separating the 'bits' of the q-bit element in a way that takes up much larger spaces than binary 'bits' can PLUS cool it down so that it can decrease the magnetic field effect as the conducting metal loops have less resistance at lower temperatures.

The same was true with Classical computers 100 years ago. Technology progresses.

The logic of the Q-bit is NOT random, if this is what you meant. But see the last response.

I know it's not random. It's non-deterministic.

[Age]

I will delve down to the MOST 'basics' there is. After all it is from the very depths, deep down HERE, where True under-standing comes from, and where 'lies', themselves, are bared for ALL to SEE. So, YOUR CLAIM that "NO one is willing to strip down to the basics" is NOT true, as I have ALREADY STRIPPED DOWN to the MOST FUNDAMENTAL BASICS of ALL-THERE-IS.

Why do you not come and join 'me'?

I am not against you as a person.

If 'you' ARE or ARE NOT, then this has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING WHATSOEVER AT ALL on the words written down, under the label "age".

'you' can be 'against' me, or not, for all you like. Either way that has NO BEARING on 'me'. It is the VIEWS ONLY, in the form of written words here, that I LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

I am saying that you are dragging in issues that are drastically irrelevant in the way, as I've described to you before, LIKE a child going through the two-year-old stage of asking 'why' to everything that while appropriate to and for the child, requires the parent to be extremely patient to address things that cannot always be done practically. [And no, I'm not calling you a child.]

I was NOT ASSUMING 'you' were calling 'me' a child. And, by the way, I do NOT care one iota if 'you' were, or not.

Anyway, you can SAY that "I am "dragging" in issues that you CLAIM are "drastically" irrelevant" as OFTEN as you like. Doing this, to me, is just IRRELEVANT, to what I have been SAYING, and POINTING OUT in the FLAWS and FAULTS in YOUR VIEWS and BELIEFS here.

Also, to me, the 'WHY' stage lasts a LOT longer than just the VERY SHORT period of just the, so called, "two-year-old stage", by some of 'us' And, by what you wrote here are you SUGGESTING that asking 'WHY' questions after some short "period" is NOT APPROPRIATE? Furthermore if parents do NOT YET KNOW how to answer ALL 'why' questions, that a "two-year-old" asks, then that is a SURE SIGN that these parents have a LOT MORE to learn, AND UNDERSTAND.

Also, IF NOTICED 'I' am NOT asking 'you' 'WHY' questions that I cannot ALREADY ANSWER, unless OF COURSE those questions are VERY SPECIFIC to 'you' ALONE.

Anyway, I have ALREADY POINTED OUT WHY YOUR CLAIMS are WRONG.

By the way, the use of the words "dragging" and "drastically" are REALLY 'irrelevant', themselves, and were just brought in and used by 'you' to influence an 'emotive' reaction, which influences, unfortunately, some "others" to SEE a 'more true' perspective of what else you wrote.

You begun here in an above post by dragging in the definition of 'philosophy' when the context I used is normally understood without concern.

AGAIN, the "dragging" word is used here, just to influence [or 'drag'] a very particular perception into a 'perspective'.

By the way, what you call "normally" is VERY 'widely' AND VERY 'incorrectly' used. Just LOOK AT how often the word 'philosophy' is used, and, IF REALLY DELVED INTO, how often MISUNDERSTOOD this word ACTUALLY IS can be CLEARLY SEEN, which is VERY CONCERNING.

Also, ANY one can VERY EASILY say that the 'context' they used is normally understood without concern. YET they would have ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWING of this, other than just AN ASSUMPTION.

If I have to break down each and every thing you 'ask', I'm forced to DIGRESS off the topic at hand.

IF 'you' had just ANSWERED my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ALREADY, then you would NOT be spending so much time as you are now writing ALL of this COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT 'STUFF'.

Also, IF 'you' had just ANSWERED my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, Honestly, then what this would have ACTUALLY led to is UNCOVERING thee Truth of the 'topic at hand'. You just said what you did here because we were NOT leading to WHERE you WANTED to end up, and be.

Then, for other readers who might be interested, would be turned off from joining in because the lack of 'continuity' of the discussion about the OP.

What the opening post IS ABOUT is 'you' CLAIMING that 'you' have PROOF of some 'thing', which 'you' could NEVER have PROOF of.

IF 'you' did ACTUALLY have PROOF, then 'you' could just PROVIDE 'this' NO MATTER what I say here. Do NOT 'try to' BLAME 'me' for what 'you' can NOT DO.

It basically derails the conversation.

LOOK AT the WORDS that 'you' are ACTUALLY writing here now. These ARE what is ACTUALLY 'derailing' AND 'digressing' from the the 'topic at hand'.

You also did this in "I have a box.." which was itself meant only to discuss the concept of the unknown, something you should appreciate in light of your complaints.

But what 'you' CLAIM HERE as being "unknown" is ACTUALLY ALREADY KNOWN.

If 'you' do NOT KNOW some 'thing', then that is PERFECTLY FINE, and UNDERSTANDABLE, but please refrain from ASSUMING or PRESUMING that "others" do NOT KNOW that 'thing'.

Instead, like a record scratch (or the sound of crickets?) the concerns you raise need to be addressed separately first, not in the context of the topic of the thread.

Is what 'concerns' 'you' here, and which 'you' address continuously, REALLY in the context of the topic of this thread?

There, 'philosophy' and 'assumptions' are contentious with you.

WRONG AGAIN.

'Philosophy' AND 'assumptions' are NOT contentious with 'me'.

The way 'you' use some words I just contest, challenge, AND/OR clarify through questioning.

I don't have time to have to try to determine where your head is at when I've discussed these issues with you before to no concrete settlement.

I KNOW. 'you' have INFORMED 'me/us' of this on a couple of occasions ALREADY.

You also previously stated that you do not have time for 'this' but 'you' keep spending time repeating 'this' and on 'this'

So your concerns are 'trolling' ....

ABSOLUTELY ANY thing IS, what one BELIEVES 'it' IS. So, if this is what you BELIEVE is true, then 'it' IS TRUE, correct?

meaning here specifically, that you are preventing me passage from moving anywhere unless I appeal first and foremost to your demands about something that we have not found closure on in other threads.

ONLY 'you' are STOPPING 'you' here. Blaming ANY 'thing' else for what 'you', OBVIOUSLY, can NOT do, will NOT help 'you' AT ALL.

I already HEAR your opinions but cannot handle them because you are extensively drawing the same complaints out related to your claims about what is 'assumptions'.

IF 'you' REALLY do ALREADY HEAR 'me', then what am 'I' saying in regards to MY CLAIMS about what is 'assumptions'?

That one topic alone has wasted space and conversation in a WAY that I cannot tell if you are intentionally trying to derail me for some reason or are being serious but naive.

IF 'you' had ALREADY REALLY HEARD 'me', then 'you' would ALREADY be able to TELL.

I have to gamble on the practical possibility that you are acting 'political', like how Donald Trump demonstrates when he denies the obvious.

BUT, 'you' do NOT 'have to' do this AT ALL. 'you' are just ASSUMING 'you' do.

[He is not actually as stupid as his behavior appears because he is INTENTIONALLY lying to distract attention away from the actual issues. It hints that he is hiding something.] For me, this is HOW IT APPEARS. And I don't have the time nor willingness to play.

This is just because 'you' do NOT WANT to UNDERSTAND anything more than what 'you' ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

I HAVE to ignore you or you 'win' for the success of distraction, whether you intend that or not.

LOL 'you' spend quite a considerable amount of "time", on 'me', discussing Truly IRRELEVANT 'things', about 'me' and which IS 'off topic'. Did 'you' INTEND to DISTRACT as MUCH as 'you have here, now?

Go ahead and keep writing. I am not censoring you, though I am 'censuring' (rebuking) you. If you have something more friendly to respond to that lacks the cues of distraction, I'll respond. Otherwise, I have to pass over what you initially say in a those mile-long posts. It's just practical sense.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN, EVIDENCED, and PROVEN in my last reply and post to 'you', in this thread, is EXACTLY HOW I have COUNTERED YOUR "argument" and CLAIM here.

I have ALREADY SHOWN HOW and WHY your argument is NOT sound NOR valid as well as SHOWED HOW and WHY your claim is SO WRONG.

Now, 'you' may NOT have liked this, but either ACCEPT this, or, COUNTER it. But please REFRAIN from whinging AND complaining about this.

ALL 'you' are REALLY CLAIMING and arguing for IS:
BEFORE 'Something' or 'Everything' came into existence, there was ABSOLUTELY 'Nothing'.

Now if 'this' IS WRONG, then CORRECT IT.

And, ALL 'I' am REALLY SAYING IS;
IF you want to CLAIM 'this', then PROVE there was an 'origin', and then PROVE that at that 'origin' there was Absolutely Nothing, absolutely existing.

So, what is with EVERY 'thing' else 'you' have spent so much "time" and "effort" saying AND writing here.

IF 'you' do NOT NOW CLAIM what 'you' were at the start of this thread, then so be it. That is PERFECTLY FINE and UNDERSTANDABLE. But, back tracking AND distracting is NOT helping 'you' AT ALL here.

Also, is it only 'me' with the, so called, "mile-long posts".

[Atla]

See, IF, and when, 'you', adult human beings START DOING what I SUGGEST, then the VERY OPPOSITE of what you CLAIM here is what WILL HAPPEN and OCCUR. That is; Unity, or better still, and better worded, REUNIFICATION WILL BEGIN.

Unless you're wrong about the universe, and there really is no unified mind or whatever unified something you're thinking of.

I have NEVER mentioned ANYWHERE ANY thing about some, so called, "unified mind".

Also, here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of one who comes to, and/or makes up, "conclusions" about what I am, supposedly, 'thinking', YET they do NOT EVEN YET KNOW what I have I ACTUALLY BEEN TALKING ABOUT, NOR SAYING.

These people do NOT even KNOW what I have been SAYING, although my words are CLEARLY WRITTEN DOWN, before them, as is CLEARLY EVIDENCED, and PROVEN, but they STILL BELIEVE that they KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, as PROVEN by this person's next statement, and CLAIM.

That's probably one of the oldest delusions in the book, stop making baseless assumptions.

LOL What are 'you' basing YOUR ASSUMPTION here on, EXACTLY?

And 'what' is " probably one of the oldest delusions 'in the book' "?

Also, what 'book' are 'you' referring to here?

By the way, I am NOT making ANY ASSUMPTIONS here.

I am BASING what I have ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT, on what can and will be ACTUALLY used as EVIDENCE to back up, support, AND PROVE what I SAY, AND CLAIM.

Remember that 'you' are STILL AT the DO NOT EVEN KNOW what I am ACTUALLY SAYING YET, let alone KNOWING the ACTUAL MEANING behind my words AND sentences. I suggest that 'you' CLARIFY this FIRST, BEFORE 'you' even START to ASSUME ANY thing, which is going on in the 'background', 'in the KNOWING', which I am USING to CREATE to 'that', which I have set out to create and am Creating.

'you' just saying, "stop making baseless assumptions", is about one of the MOST 'baseless ASSUMPTIONS', itself. As can be and will be PROVEN True.

Unless, OF COURSE, you would like to PROVE 'me' WRONG here. Which, by all means if you do, feel completely and absolutely FREE to go right on ahead and do that.

If you would like to PROVE 'me' WRONG, then just EXPLAIN to ALL the readers here:
1. What is, SUPPOSED, to be 'my' ASSUMPTION here, from YOUR perspective, and which you CLAIM is "baseless"?
2. After you have done that, then EXPLAIN, HOW and WHY that, supposed, ASSUMPTION IS 'baseless'.

SHOW 'us', and let 'us' SEE, IF YOUR ASSUMPTION here is BASED on ABSOLUTELY ANY thing or on NOTHING AT ALL.

'We' are ALL WAITING, for 'you' NOW.

So you wrote about reunification, and then lied that you didn't wite about any reunification.

[Age]

Unless you're wrong about the universe, and there really is no unified mind or whatever unified something you're thinking of.

I have NEVER mentioned ANYWHERE ANY thing about some, so called, "unified mind".

Also, here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of one who comes to, and/or makes up, "conclusions" about what I am, supposedly, 'thinking', YET they do NOT EVEN YET KNOW what I have I ACTUALLY BEEN TALKING ABOUT, NOR SAYING.

These people do NOT even KNOW what I have been SAYING, although my words are CLEARLY WRITTEN DOWN, before them, as is CLEARLY EVIDENCED, and PROVEN, but they STILL BELIEVE that they KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, as PROVEN by this person's next statement, and CLAIM.

That's probably one of the oldest delusions in the book, stop making baseless assumptions.

LOL What are 'you' basing YOUR ASSUMPTION here on, EXACTLY?

And 'what' is " probably one of the oldest delusions 'in the book' "?

Also, what 'book' are 'you' referring to here?

By the way, I am NOT making ANY ASSUMPTIONS here.

I am BASING what I have ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT, on what can and will be ACTUALLY used as EVIDENCE to back up, support, AND PROVE what I SAY, AND CLAIM.

Remember that 'you' are STILL AT the DO NOT EVEN KNOW what I am ACTUALLY SAYING YET, let alone KNOWING the ACTUAL MEANING behind my words AND sentences. I suggest that 'you' CLARIFY this FIRST, BEFORE 'you' even START to ASSUME ANY thing, which is going on in the 'background', 'in the KNOWING', which I am USING to CREATE to 'that', which I have set out to create and am Creating.

'you' just saying, "stop making baseless assumptions", is about one of the MOST 'baseless ASSUMPTIONS', itself. As can be and will be PROVEN True.

Unless, OF COURSE, you would like to PROVE 'me' WRONG here. Which, by all means if you do, feel completely and absolutely FREE to go right on ahead and do that.

If you would like to PROVE 'me' WRONG, then just EXPLAIN to ALL the readers here:
1. What is, SUPPOSED, to be 'my' ASSUMPTION here, from YOUR perspective, and which you CLAIM is "baseless"?
2. After you have done that, then EXPLAIN, HOW and WHY that, supposed, ASSUMPTION IS 'baseless'.

SHOW 'us', and let 'us' SEE, IF YOUR ASSUMPTION here is BASED on ABSOLUTELY ANY thing or on NOTHING AT ALL.

'We' are ALL WAITING, for 'you' NOW.

So you wrote about reunification, and then lied that you didn't wite about any reunification.

NO. I NEVER did ANY such thing. And, WHY is this 'accusing me of lying' YOUR ONLY 'go to' in relation to 'you' 'trying to' counter 'my views'?

So, WHERE EXACTLY in my words did it make 'you' JUMP 'to the conclusion' that I "lied"?

IF 'you' EVER answer this question Honestly, then we, at least, have SOME 'thing', which we can LOOK AT, INTO, and DISCUSS.

I suggest that 'you' LOOK AT the ACTUAL words I use, and ONLY them, instead of PRESUMING 'things' and SEEING what is ACTUALLY NOT HERE.

Also, what is CLEARLY OBVIOUS is that 'you' were COMPLETELY DISABLED to answering my four CLARIFYING QUESTIONS Honestly. This is because if you did, then you would just be CONTRADICTING your previous views, claims, and/or beliefs.

[Scott Mayers]

...

I don't understand where you are going with this ^above.

I'm not interested in mere opinions but proof in the form of logic. Yet most of these philosophers are discussing the meaning of logic which begs what kind of reasoning they presume. As such, they are opinions and their classifications are their OWN, not set in stone rules for all to follow simply because they came before and were able to pass on their records.

I don't agree with the definitions he uses or by how you may be interpreting second-hand of his [Kant's] to which I'm learning through you of him. I cannot interview the guy to ask, "did you mean this...?", nor do I find him 'authoritative' enough to somehow override what I haven't spent time on my own to determine. I'm very self-reflective and corrective. I don't need MORE and MORE to read of others to qualify for an opinion of MY OWN. Otherwise, I wouldn't have a concern to be here and would just settle for reading on my own.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...

I don't understand where you are going with this ^above.

I'm not interested in mere opinions but proof in the form of logic. Yet most of these philosophers are discussing the meaning of logic which begs what kind of reasoning they presume. As such, they are opinions and their classifications are their OWN, not set in stone rules for all to follow simply because they came before and were able to pass on their records.

I don't agree with the definitions he uses or by how you may be interpreting second-hand of his [Kant's] to which I'm learning through you of him. I cannot interview the guy to ask, "did you mean this...?", nor do I find him 'authoritative' enough to somehow override what I haven't spent time on my own to determine. I'm very self-reflective and corrective. I don't need MORE and MORE to read of others to qualify for an opinion of MY OWN. Otherwise, I wouldn't have a concern to be here and would just settle for reading on my own.

I was just offering my views without any expectation you must click with them.
If there is nothing applicable therein, just give it a pass.

[Scott Mayers]

My simple argument here places a foundation to Totality without a need for some 'god' nor 'human' at this place.
This place, for not being able to find a term for it that people cannot seem to push 'time' into its meaning that I do not, is "Absolutely Nothing" and contrasts itself from "Absolutely Something" and "Absolutely Everything", as the only closed set of possible options (without delving into things like levels of infinites or infinitesimals).
I also do not agree to the physicist's whom I partially agree with but who believe that we can only speak on THIS Universe for the reason I don't approve of "absolutely some-SPECIFIC-thing" of Totality: it is politics and religious to me to assume ONE universe without it implying these 'special' states. [Any finite set of 'things' regarding Totality is a special subset of the whole, or a universal in terms of logic.]

The reason 'absolutes' are needed is because I am wanting to begin at the core, or root, or origin, or background which are universally necessary FOR 'causation' issues.
In order to try to show how Nature operates universally in an argument that intends to prove you CAN find a universal logical way to construct reality WITHOUT resort to our biased pre-observed world, requires dealing with the most general of the general of the general class that encompasses ALL universals (universes).
I know we are biased to communicate from where we are, but the logic here is to show that something CAN derive from no apriori Something which begs what this 'something' (or set of somethings) are.
When you argue for an absolute strict state of 'nothing', it lacks the issues that reduce to religious or political bias that has kept logic as though it is a proprietary HUMAN-owned calculator.
If Nature has no 'author', this non-author concept has to be NOTHING.
The reason ancient science and secular thought HAS reduced to the modern virus of religions is due most specifically to the inability to separate the 'human' bias from the picture.

I note from the above, you are chasing after some thing [loosely] which is "Totality" which origin is 'absolute nothing'.
This totality which origin is absolutely nothing is as you had claimed in independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exists regardless there are humans or not.
This fit precisely in the fundamental principle of Philosophical Realism, i.e. [mine]

Philosophical realism is a broad family of philosophies regarding the properties and contents of reality.
Realism may refer to a number of positions within metaphysics and epistemology, which express that a given thing exists in reality independently of [human] knowledge or understanding.
This can apply to items such as the physical world, the past and future, other minds, and the self, as well as to those such as universals, mathematical truths, moral truths, and thought itself.

In your case the above basic principle is applied to the external physical world and its origin, which is absolute nothing.

The only other alternative is Philosophical Anti-Realism which main principle is, a given thing exists in reality interdependently with human knowledge and understanding, which is Kant's Copernican Revolution [.I agree] and others [some I don't agree with] of the like.

Do you have an alternative to the above two distinct philosophical stance? I would be very interested if you can come up with something else which is not reducible to either.

Wait up. I am very able to express my view and you keep overlooking them to try to fit me into labels of other's in a way that attempts to commit me to taking 'sides' of some whole classes of beliefs, but not anything specific. Read those Wiki entries' sentences that assert them AS general classes of philosophies.

Problem: they assume that you have to have EXCLUSIVE beliefs about reality when I interpret them both as mere PERSPECTIVES that are context-related. One actually is embeded in both,...the anti-real presumption.

[EDIT: I notice your post response above AFTER I posted the first unedited version. It looks like I need more...]

I don't think it a stretch to extend the concept of Absolute Nothing from mere Nothing because technically all forms of 'nothings' relative or absolute, are literally identical by OUR perspective.
When someone presumes unicorns' as non-existing, they mean it is not in OUR world, not that it as a concept would be absurd. Narwals have spiral horns, horses are the basis for this creature, ...so unicorns are realistically possible and thus cannot be ruled out in all possible worlds. This is a 'relative nothing' because it COULD exist still in another world but we cannot determine it.

As I had stated before, whatever you postulated as possibly real in reality, it must have only possible empirical elements or their combinations, e.g. horns, horses, thus unicorns are empirically possible. To confirm it is really real, we need to empirical evidence to verify and justify it exists as real.

I exist, therefore SOMETHING exists EMPIRICALLY. I don't need a formal panel of scientists to agree to this as they too are merely other people I MUST assume are just a part of my 'empirical' environment IN QUESTION, ...like the very 'objects' we are discussing.

So, given 'someting exists' EMPIRICALLY to me, I am either ALL there is or am a SUBSET of some greater environment, right?

Thus I can call myself at this initiating stage, "Totality OR some part of Totality, where the label, "Totality" can just as easily be my arbitrary name for WHATEVER reality is. But what is certain, is that the label's referent of me being all that is real (solipsistically) or some part of it, the MEANING of Totality is nevertheless REAL. I don't have to question whether reality actually exists apart from me or not at this stage because "Totality" exists independently for being true of BOTH the 'realist' and the 'anti-realist'.

I interpret the 'realist' from your perspective as those proposing that reality exists beyond our senses and you may think that I cannot 'know' objects outside of me. That is 'solipistic' and implies that if I was all there was, I would require proving this TO MYSELF, by something as simply as demanding that I shall wish a "unicorn" to exist. "Abracadabra".....(I wait),.....nope, no unicorn. Thus this proves to me EMPIRICALLY, that I either lack the power to BE totally all there is -- except possibly if I opted to 'forget' that I was playing some game as a 'god'. Regardless, I lack BOTH the ability to assert that I am Totality (for not being able to have power to pop 'outside' of my perspective) nor that the images are not themselves just a layer of the same,...as an 'image' of an 'image'. Thus, neither the 'real' nor 'anti-real' positions relate to what is or is not real but only perspectives one WANTS to assert is the starting point to reason about the sensations.

Do you or do you NOT agree that Totality, as defined as THEE Absolute All or perfectly ONE thing, is at least 'true' Empirically for simply experiencing ANYTHING? It doesn't matter at this point that OTHERS could agree because what is 'empirical', for whatever OTHER factors it involves requires NECESSARILY that I am an 'observer'? And yet, I also only interpret anything 'real' AS the very 'images', the collective sensations I experience. So it CAN be true that your 'antirealist' position is IMBEDDED in part of what the 'realist' position is just as Nothing = Nothing AND Something [that 0 = 0 x 1, for its mathematical equivalent comparison]. That is whatever is 'real' out there is either sincerley 'real' OR 'not-real', which is similar to Something = Nothing OR Something [that 1 = 1 + 0, for its mathematical comparison.].

Note that the two are IDENTICAL in meaning (and what was labeled "DeMorgan's rule or theorem" after the guy who first noticed this identity.)

You can be either realist or antirealist to be 'real' [See the real = real OR antireal form there?] I am wanting to discover something about reality, and thus the way I've presented this thus far includes both views because the antirealist is what is BOTH real AND antireal [See the anti-real = anti-real AND real form here?]

So the interpretion OF reality is that some LOGIC exists empirically itself. It is just the 'mechanism' of reality (or antireality, if you prefer) regardless of the label 'logic' as originally applying to the ACT of symbolizing things and then manipulating the symbols on paper. We do this NORMALLY in our heads and thus has to be 'real' as a mechanism that takes INPUTS (our senses) in the same way that a logical argument takes its INPUTS as 'premises'; and we have OUTPUTS (our muscles, as the major set) that operate in the same way as the OUTPUT of an argument, the 'conclusions'.

So even PRIOR to any reasoning ABOUT the particular sensations, we need this mechanism or ANY reasoning about anything itself lacks justice. I am saying here that logic is itself MOST real because we could not have a brain that is 'consistent' if it were not "logical" even if you lacked the particular senses. [Think of the fact that you could become blind in life. Then because the PARTICULAR INPUTS (representing the reality we are judging empirically or as abitrary symbols for the antirealist) have CHANGED, does the mind that only saw through eyes prior to this point cancel out the LOGIC (as a mechanism) of your thoughts before?]

My definitions are MINIMAL to one's mind's ability to judge alone, not with the NEED to presume some PARTICULAR sensations as indicative of 'objects' or the mere 'symbols of objects'. Both are true where the objects happen to be the PERFECT model of itself if the symbol (perception) happens to BE the 'object' or not. One's internal imagination (as symbols themselves) are indifferent to the interpretation of the sensations as symbols, as both of these are also indifferent to the 'objects' (for being perfect models of themselves as 'symbols').

Thus regardless, I have 100% proof that Something exits regardless of those remote sensed humans, like yourself, could agree or disagree. They are irrelevant. This is also able to have the same qualifying features of the scientific method with respect to myself (or others who want to experiment in thought here). I formulate the 'method' in thought to prove to yourself whether these things I say are 'agreed' by you. Thus this is 'repeatability' for trying to understand this of your own mind. If you cannot, it doesn't take away my own 'scientific' reasoning here.

So debating constantly about whether I can be sure YOU could NEVER trust what I have to say is sound or not because you have some hangup about some class you figure I may belong to is premature. The direct 'evidence' for the reality of NOTHING, relative or not, has to be both DEDUCTIVELY secure AND EMPIRICAL, because all I need is to INPUT NO PREMISE at all and conclude "Nothing" as deduced. The reality of Nothing is inferred from the argument against Solipsism, that you cannot CONTROL your reality, and thus there is a greater reality in meaning to Totality to which 'nothing' only requires the understanding of the meaning of anything unknown or potentially unknowable outside yourself.

You can presume this 'religious' by assigning Nothing as "God". [And to which the Biblical Judaism asserts was a 'source' (YWYH or 'the egg' meaning source) that is CURSED to speak of by 'name'....meaning it is 'ineffible' as Absolute Nothing tends to be to most people).]
But, IF this Absolute Nothing is as a religious 'god', it has no PROPERTIES to disprove. Thus, thinking that you require to OBSERVE it is not necessary in the same way.

---
A different way of thinking of Absolute Nothing. Let us discuss how we might use a medium, like paper, to act as the "background" to something we communicate on. It is 'real' to us but NOT 'real' to whatever we might write on the paper to express thought. The paper is a 'blank' not meant to communicate even though it still does when used as a 'white space' within a sentence. Just as this post uses a background, it lacks meaning without the contrasting black color and shape of the letters here that cannot be expressed without presuming 'white' space that demonstrates unique shape to the symbols.

The 'white spaces' represent the 'relative nothings' where the background paper or the space of your screen reading this, represents an 'absolute nothing' by contrast to the message this medium is being use to communicate. The 'white spaces' though are INDIFFERENT to the 'blank' page in actual practice. But the medium, the page or the screen is nevertheless ESSENTIAL, even if we ignore it for what the particular images are written or displayed on it. That is, 'white space' (defining characters and sentences using only one contrasting color than the background medium) is the assigned part of 'blank' space (the medium's default color).

Absolute Nothing is the BACKGROUND NECESSARY for all reality that doesn't itself require 'causation'. As such, it is the ONLY possible 'thing' required as an ultimate source apriori, of which 'origins', where it is a time-source term we use for causation, is either rooted in Absolutely Nothing OR is Absolutely Infinite (no root cause regarding time). Because I've defined ...

Totality AS Absolutely Nothing, Something, or Everything,

....it is all of them, where only Absolutely Nothing acts as the 'blank medium' for reality, Absolute Something acts like the contrasting ink medium color used to represent symbols, and Absolutely Everything acts as the complete (or incomplete) set of possible things that could be written uniquely on all possible pages for that type of media as a background. It is itself NOT required to 'exist' where we interpret existence as 'time' any more than we require a reader (observer) to be constantly reading all possible pages at once to be sure it 'read' (complete).

This is a 'self-evident' proof. I can keep trying to get you and others to understand this. But if you don't, it can only be due to interpreting what I'm saying incorrectly (not necessarily any 'fault' implied other than the means of communicating this effectively itself.).

Absolute Nothing == Absolute Nothing AND Absolutely (anything else),

where "(anything else)" is at least "Absolute Something" all the way to "Absolutely Infinite Things"

[Veritas Aequitas]

In your case the above basic principle is applied to the external physical world and its origin, which is absolute nothing.
The only other alternative is Philosophical Anti-Realism which main principle is, a given thing exists in reality interdependently with human knowledge and understanding, which is Kant's Copernican Revolution [.I agree] and others [some I don't agree with] of the like.
Do you have an alternative to the above two distinct philosophical stance? I would be very interested if you can come up with something else which is not reducible to either.

Wait up. I am very able to express my view and you keep overlooking them to try to fit me into labels of other's in a way that attempts to commit me to taking 'sides' of some whole classes of beliefs, but not anything specific. Read those Wiki entries' sentences that assert them AS general classes of philosophies.

Problem: they assume that you have to have EXCLUSIVE beliefs about reality when I interpret them both as mere PERSPECTIVES that are context-related. One actually is embedded in both,...the anti-real presumption.

Yes, Philosophical Realism and Philosophical Anti-Realism are represented by a general classes of philosophies but they are all reducible to a core principle for each, i.e. which is

• -Philosophical Realism = reality is ULTIMATELY independent of the human conditions,
  -Philosophical Anti-Realism = reality is ULTIMATELY interdependent with the human condition.

Note the term 'ultimately' in the above.

For the philosophical anti-realists, reality can be proximately [not ultimately] independent of the human conditions as in my stance re Empirical Realism but it is ultimately interdependent with the human conditions.
It is the same with my claims of Moral Realism which is merely proximately independent with the human conditions but ultimately interdependent with the human conditions.

So contexts is very critical in discussing the above.

My point is your stance is ultimately Philosophical Realism [PR], i.e. whatever you claim as the final reality is independent of the human conditions.
Reflect and try to get out of this PR straight-jacket, you cannot.

As I had stated before, whatever you postulated as possibly real in reality, it must have only possible empirical elements or their combinations, e.g. horns, horses, thus unicorns are empirically possible. To confirm it is really real, we need to empirical evidence to verify and justify it exists as real.

I exist, therefore SOMETHING exists EMPIRICALLY.
I don't need a formal panel of scientists to agree to this as they too are merely other people I MUST assume are just a part of my 'empirical' environment IN QUESTION, ...like the very 'objects' we are discussing.

So, given 'someting exists' EMPIRICALLY to me, I am either ALL there is or am a SUBSET of some greater environment, right?

NOPE.
There is no problem for scientists or anyone to verify and justify the empirical-you or empirical-I.

But there is serious philosophical issue with the "I-AM."
Note Descartes' I-Think [empirically] therefore I-AM [ontologically].

The Philosophical Realists will insist there is an "I-AM" that is independent of the "I-Think" and many concluded that is an independent "I-AM" i.e. a soul that survive physical death.
Note Jesus' "Before Abraham was, I-AM."

The Philosophical Anti-Realists has long long ago countered the reality of "I-AM" e.g. Buddhism and the likes and also the ancient greeks.
Note Hume's famous 'the self is just a bundle of activity' and nothing more.
Kant also denounced the existence of any real 'I-AM' which he argued is an illusion. There is no I_AM-in-itself.
There are many other philosophical anti-realists who shared the same views.
This is why reading and understanding the extensive philosophical views is so critical and useful.

Thus I can call myself at this initiating stage, "Totality OR some part of Totality, where the label, "Totality" can just as easily be my arbitrary name for WHATEVER reality is.
But what is certain, is that the label's referent of me being all that is real (solipsistically) or some part of it, the MEANING of Totality is nevertheless REAL.
I don't have to question whether reality actually exists apart from me or not at this stage because "Totality" exists independently for being true of BOTH the 'realist' and the 'anti-realist'.

Nope.
Note I stated for the anti-realist, independence is only a proximate truth[note this term] but not an ultimate truth.
For the realist like yourself, independence is the ultimate truth.

For you as a philosophical realist, that TOTALITY which you deduced is independent of the human conditions in the ultimate sense.
For philosophical anti-realists like me, an ' independent totality' is empirical and merely a proximate truth but not an ultimate truth. For me, whatever is reality, all-there-is or totality is ultimately empirical and interdependent with the human conditions. Note,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality [totality] They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

I interpret the 'realist' from your perspective as those proposing that reality exists beyond our senses and you may think that I cannot 'know' objects outside of me.
That is 'solipsistic' and implies that if I was all there was, I would require proving this TO MYSELF, by something as simply as demanding that I shall wish a "unicorn" to exist. "Abracadabra".....(I wait),.....nope, no unicorn.
Thus this proves to me EMPIRICALLY, that I either lack the power to BE totally all there is -- except possibly if I opted to 'forget' that I was playing some game as a 'god'.
Regardless, I lack BOTH the ability to assert that I am Totality (for not being able to have power to pop 'outside' of my perspective) nor that the images are not themselves just a layer of the same,...as an 'image' of an 'image'.
Thus, neither the 'real' nor 'anti-real' positions relate to what is or is not real but only perspectives one WANTS to assert is the starting point to reason about the sensations.

Note Solipsism is an Incoherent Concept,
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7
thus it has no philosophical teeth at all.

For the philosophical anti-realists, they are only concern with what is empirically known and if not yet known, it must be empirically possible to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
Philosophical anti-realist don't give a damn with an independent totality beyond the human conditions. What is the use of such knowledge?

On the other hand, philosophical realists merely speculate their reality and totality exists beyond human conditions purely for psychological reasons as I had mentioned many times.
At the end of one extreme, theists as philosophical realists jumped to conclusion there exists an independent reality and an independent God merely to soothe their dissonance and selfish drive for salvation. Such belief in an illusion had been malignant and had brought forth terrible evils and sufferings to humanity.
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'

At another end of a benign extreme, philosophical realists like you are driven to a totality that is independent of the human conditions to soothe some smaller degree of dissonance.
Btw, what utility has your theory to mankind other than for your own consonance.
This is just my view, you would disagree.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you or do you NOT agree that Totality, as defined as THEE Absolute All or perfectly ONE thing, is at least 'true' Empirically for simply experiencing ANYTHING?

No I don't agree with your above points for reasons given in the previous post.

Your 'Totality' THEE Absolute All or perfectly ONE thing is extrapolated transcendentally from the empirical but it is not empirical per-se.

Note my thread;
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341
Your totality is merely a thought sitting on a fence between 'No Man's Land' and 'La La Land.'
Your 'totality' is not empirical at all.
This is like you have conflated and were not aware of the empirical "I Think" is distinct the ontological "I AM".

I tried to reach to you that Kant in his CPR explained the above conflation and distinction between the 'empirical' and the 'transcendental' very soundly but it did not click with you at all. I understand why it did not click because it is SO hard to read Kant. It took me 3 years of full time to get a good grasp of Kant's philosophies.

It doesn't matter at this point that OTHERS could agree because what is 'empirical', for whatever OTHER factors it involves requires NECESSARILY that I am an 'observer'? And yet, I also only interpret anything 'real' AS the very 'images', the collective sensations I experience. So it CAN be true that your 'antirealist' position is IMBEDDED in part of what the 'realist' position is just as Nothing = Nothing AND Something [that 0 = 0 x 1, for its mathematical equivalent comparison]. That is whatever is 'real' out there is either sincerley 'real' OR 'not-real', which is similar to Something = Nothing OR Something [that 1 = 1 + 0, for its mathematical comparison.].

Note that the two are IDENTICAL in meaning (and what was labeled "DeMorgan's rule or theorem" after the guy who first noticed this identity.)

You can be either realist or antirealist to be 'real' [See the real = real OR antireal form there?] I am wanting to discover something about reality, and thus the way I've presented this thus far includes both views because the antirealist is what is BOTH real AND antireal [See the anti-real = anti-real AND real form here?]

So the interpretion OF reality is that some LOGIC exists empirically itself. It is just the 'mechanism' of reality (or antireality, if you prefer) regardless of the label 'logic' as originally applying to the ACT of symbolizing things and then manipulating the symbols on paper. We do this NORMALLY in our heads and thus has to be 'real' as a mechanism that takes INPUTS (our senses) in the same way that a logical argument takes its INPUTS as 'premises'; and we have OUTPUTS (our muscles, as the major set) that operate in the same way as the OUTPUT of an argument, the 'conclusions'.

So even PRIOR to any reasoning ABOUT the particular sensations, we need this mechanism or ANY reasoning about anything itself lacks justice. I am saying here that logic is itself MOST real because we could not have a brain that is 'consistent' if it were not "logical" even if you lacked the particular senses. [Think of the fact that you could become blind in life. Then because the PARTICULAR INPUTS (representing the reality we are judging empirically or as abitrary symbols for the antirealist) have CHANGED, does the mind that only saw through eyes prior to this point cancel out the LOGIC (as a mechanism) of your thoughts before?]

My definitions are MINIMAL to one's mind's ability to judge alone, not with the NEED to presume some PARTICULAR sensations as indicative of 'objects' or the mere 'symbols of objects'. Both are true where the objects happen to be the PERFECT model of itself if the symbol (perception) happens to BE the 'object' or not. One's internal imagination (as symbols themselves) are indifferent to the interpretation of the sensations as symbols, as both of these are also indifferent to the 'objects' (for being perfect models of themselves as 'symbols').

Thus regardless, I have 100% proof that Something exits regardless of those remote sensed humans, like yourself, could agree or disagree. They are irrelevant. This is also able to have the same qualifying features of the scientific method with respect to myself (or others who want to experiment in thought here). I formulate the 'method' in thought to prove to yourself whether these things I say are 'agreed' by you. Thus this is 'repeatability' for trying to understand this of your own mind. If you cannot, it doesn't take away my own 'scientific' reasoning here.

So debating constantly about whether I can be sure YOU could NEVER trust what I have to say is sound or not because you have some hangup about some class you figure I may belong to is premature. The direct 'evidence' for the reality of NOTHING, relative or not, has to be both DEDUCTIVELY secure AND EMPIRICAL, because all I need is to INPUT NO PREMISE at all and conclude "Nothing" as deduced. The reality of Nothing is inferred from the argument against Solipsism, that you cannot CONTROL your reality, and thus there is a greater reality in meaning to Totality to which 'nothing' only requires the understanding of the meaning of anything unknown or potentially unknowable outside yourself.

You can presume this 'religious' by assigning Nothing as "God". [And to which the Biblical Judaism asserts was a 'source' (YWYH or 'the egg' meaning source) that is CURSED to speak of by 'name'....meaning it is 'ineffible' as Absolute Nothing tends to be to most people).]
But, IF this Absolute Nothing is as a religious 'god', it has no PROPERTIES to disprove. Thus, thinking that you require to OBSERVE it is not necessary in the same way.

---
A different way of thinking of Absolute Nothing. Let us discuss how we might use a medium, like paper, to act as the "background" to something we communicate on. It is 'real' to us but NOT 'real' to whatever we might write on the paper to express thought. The paper is a 'blank' not meant to communicate even though it still does when used as a 'white space' within a sentence. Just as this post uses a background, it lacks meaning without the contrasting black color and shape of the letters here that cannot be expressed without presuming 'white' space that demonstrates unique shape to the symbols.

The 'white spaces' represent the 'relative nothings' where the background paper or the space of your screen reading this, represents an 'absolute nothing' by contrast to the message this medium is being use to communicate. The 'white spaces' though are INDIFFERENT to the 'blank' page in actual practice. But the medium, the page or the screen is nevertheless ESSENTIAL, even if we ignore it for what the particular images are written or displayed on it. That is, 'white space' (defining characters and sentences using only one contrasting color than the background medium) is the assigned part of 'blank' space (the medium's default color).

Absolute Nothing is the BACKGROUND NECESSARY for all reality that doesn't itself require 'causation'. As such, it is the ONLY possible 'thing' required as an ultimate source apriori, of which 'origins', where it is a time-source term we use for causation, is either rooted in Absolutely Nothing OR is Absolutely Infinite (no root cause regarding time). Because I've defined ...

Totality AS Absolutely Nothing, Something, or Everything,

....it is all of them, where only Absolutely Nothing acts as the 'blank medium' for reality, Absolute Something acts like the contrasting ink medium color used to represent symbols, and Absolutely Everything acts as the complete (or incomplete) set of possible things that could be written uniquely on all possible pages for that type of media as a background. It is itself NOT required to 'exist' where we interpret existence as 'time' any more than we require a reader (observer) to be constantly reading all possible pages at once to be sure it 'read' (complete).

This is a 'self-evident' proof. I can keep trying to get you and others to understand this. But if you don't, it can only be due to interpreting what I'm saying incorrectly (not necessarily any 'fault' implied other than the means of communicating this effectively itself.).

Absolute Nothing == Absolute Nothing AND Absolutely (anything else),

where "(anything else)" is at least "Absolute Something" all the way to "Absolutely Infinite Things"

I read through the above and in my view, the whole issue is reducible and resolvable to either a philosophical realist versus philosophical anti-realist position.

If you stick with the philosophical realist position, this is what you entrapped and be unsettled with an illusion, i.e. re Kant,

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them [the illusions].
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397

On the other hand, the philosophical anti-realists [with Empirical Realism] there is no illusion because he is always engaged with the empirical and has no psychological drive to seek what is beyond the empirical or whatever unknown that is empirically possible.

[Scott Mayers]

But unless you CAN lay out all the possible initial options so that I can see whatever you could possibly mean, then I cannot argue further.

The initial "option" is choice.

Do I want to admit an identity axiom in my system?
Do I want to admit a non-contradiction axiom in my system?

If you answer "no" to both, you end up with a Schrödinger logic with inductive types.

I doubt you even know what you are sourcing from outside our conversation (links). If you have proof of this logic, why not let me in on the secret? What ARE the damn axioms so that I might possibly demonstrate how you could possibly be wrong? I can't re-counter what you cannot clearly prove as a counter argument. Give me an example of some axioms of ANY non-'classical' system that asserts a NO about the laws of 'identity' or 'contradiction'.

Read my post to Veritas I just wrote above (the bottom of the "----" is where I re-introduced another way of arguing this, if you don't relate to the part above it). My own study of multivariable logic IS the set of all other POSSIBLE non-binary logics to which Quantum Mechanics would use at least one of them. It doesn't DENY those laws, it EXTENDS them.

And, "inductive" is just a practical logic, but nevertheless a part of logic TO ME. I don't care if you PREFER otherwise to separate the two. It is the process of taking any set of things observed as a list to which you GUESS at which possible one(s) will become a premise in any deductive logic. The deductive part 'tests' the assumption of the guess for 'validity'. If it passes, then we presume the MEANING of the conclusion as it relates to the premises as 'sound' tentatively. The set of 'laws' that science induces becomes the ultimate INPUTS to a deductive logic that REPRESENTS the reality (not just the symbols). If the logic using the laws is 'sound' (and has no other conflicting observations that themselves can be input to a different deductive argument), then the logic is a direct representation of HOW the logic of reality operates. It is 'tentative' ONLY by the assumptions that the observations themselves reference as not literally SHARABLE by the exact ideal same 'observation' point. It CAN be certified if the form of induction is 100% exhausted of all possibilities. Math uses this form of 'induction' but on the condition of the domain of numbers understood to continue to exist infinitely.

You are asserting 'alternates' where none is needed at this level

That's a sweeping statement. Needed by whom and for what purpose?

You're assumptions are that the "non-classical" logics are absolutely exclusive of the "classical" logic. They are just ADDITIONS to the "incomplete" classical versions. I read once a book attempting to sell 'fuzzy logic' as though it demonstrated an 'alternate' reality. It used an 'apple' as an example and asked if a bite out of it alters the meaning of the apple. Then if ARROGANTLY AND FALSELY assumed that 'classical logic' was literally at odds with it. The author was wrong as his examples he used were very inaccurate respresentations of the 'classics' AND proved he didn't actually study the classical prior to jumping right into defending 'fuzzy logic'. It missed the advancement of Boolean extensions of using more than just the binary truth values. For what Schrödinger would use would be identical to this by assigning fractions as the intermediate values between the MAXIMUM and the MINIMUM extremes. The 'extremes' are still identical in meaning to the initial binary '1' and '0'. It would just be '0' (as all systems use) and "P" == (the maximum value).

QM logics keep "1" as the maximum and assign fractions as those values inbetween. If there are only three values, K = {0, 1, 2} becomes reassigned, K = {0, 1/2, 1}, for instance. The complements would be different than expected: not-0 == 2 (or still 1 as the above), not-2 == 0, and not-1 (or the '1/2' as in the second) == itself.

I challenge that you do not understand the QM logic you are defending as 'alternatives' to the laws of logic. And while there are the other forms of logic that CLAIMS what you do,they do so by either opting to USE 'contradiction' or toss it out. The law of Identity has to be maintained in some way or you may as well be trying to make sense of things as nonsense. Nothing can be 'proven' if you cannot assert the identity,

...and the Conclusion IS ....

....because for lack of identity, you'd have nothing concrete to meaning. If I cannot find I share identity to your meaning, it is indifferent that not sharing anything at all in principle. You'd be just arguing that some 'X works in mysterious ways', and can never be understood. Thus, it is the end of further discussion.

They then make a lot of political-like campaignes of destruction of the others by misappropriating the meanings. To me, comes across as a type of argument for inclusion of Biblical 'theory' along side Evolution in text books simply on the basis that they CLAIM they have an 'alternate science' foundation which matters.

The irony. From where I am looking people who believe in the "foundations" of logic are dogmatic.

Science is empirical and inductive. Inductive is something that logic isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism

"Foundations" include whatever alternative to the 'classic logic' laws you presume has exclusively unique or different ones. We still require arguing in the 'classic' way to prove whether alternatives exist. And the only flexible part of those three main ones is the INCLUSION of the contradictions by extending the VALUE of 'truth' to have degrees, or...to be used without concern to 'truth'. Totality IS such a reality that is both true&not-true in that it contains both and 'truth' value only means whether something is inside some given Universe or outside it....but still inside Totality.

Both X&non-X discovered 'real' means that there is MORE to the universe you began from. The 'classic logic' is incomplete in that it just tosses out conclusions like this by Negating it. But this negation is within the universe, U, where

U = (X OR non-X).

That is, if you still find (X & non-X) true, a contradiction of U, then the answer is

not-U = (X & non-X)

of some greater universal class, labeled at maximum, "Totality" and Absolute Universal. This is because Totality = U & non-U.

Yes, you can start speaking Chinese, for instance. The artificial forms of communicating do not mean that the foundational math or logic differs underneath.

Since I am an anti-foundationalist it literally means exactly that.

All "foundations" are subject to choice. Different "foundations" can always be chosen.

You are falsely presuming it not allowable (and not logical) to first symbolize any parts of reality because you think that NOTHING but the actual things can speak their 'logic'. Observations are not themselves 'proof' of anything BUT the illusions they represent. We can thus ONLY know the reality through symbols. And if you are sure to BE 'foundational', this means you are making the symbols you use to represent them have all the properties related to the illusion as complete as the sensations possible.

Does a complex computer, its programs, and potential peripherals that is able to replicate the illusions percieved suffice to demonstrate the reality, even though the reality can be distinctly different? The point here isn't that we CAN build different models but that the models are all that we have to deal with regardless by our limitations of the senses and the fact that building such a 'model' of reality is limited to APPROACHING the existence of the reality itself, short of BEING the reality. The reality has some 'predictability' if we get the logic correct because reality itself IS a 'logic' via being a complex machine of reality. If it lacks 'identity', then not even the apparent objects we observe could be the equated at ANY time. There would be no color blue other than perhaps once and then it is never to occur again because it would have an 'absolute identity' that you tell me some 'logic' has proven unable to have identity by some default law dismissing it.

The OPINIONS of people's methods of reasoning differ about how nature operates. Yet do you actually think that nature has different physical laws just because we cannot agree to them?

In so far as nature has any "laws" our knowledge and understanding of them keeps changing. You either understand the "law" of gravity according to Newton's formulation; or you understand it according to Einstein's formulation.

One nature - two laws. Oops?

Einstein's Relativity only adds to Law 1 of Newton. Where Newton's law asserts that all things have a constant momentum unless it is affected from something from outside of it, Relativity (general, not specific) adds that even things like acceleration are 'constant', a MORE 'complete' representation that does not CANCEL out Newton's laws, but reduces them to a subset of a more complete set of laws. That is, they are still true relative to the conditions you are dealing with.

The addition came from discovering that the speed of light is fixed relative to the frames that change AND to those that change another changing concept. A fixed maximum speed to anything acts as the 'resistance' (or 'inertia') factor that prevents what we see from accelerating beyond what curvature of spaces may represent as constant acceleration towards a possible point in the shared 'center(s)' something is moving around.

You are welcome to disagree. But put your money where your mouth is and PROVE what you mean.

That's a rather ignorant request. In what axiom-schema would you. like me to PROVE this to you?
Proof theory deals strictly with syntax/structure.
Model theory deals with semantics/meaning.

What does this have to do with asking you for ONE specific set of axioms? I'm not asking for you to prove ALL varients. The Proof theories are about proving a 'designed' logic, like a programming language, to determine if is has flaws, like that it might miss that it has a loop-hole issue that fails to 'completely' cover its intended domain. I've understood the metaproofs process and do so on my own. I can demonstrate both a syntax and link it to the meanings of the symbols. The symbols are NOT the literal reality, but references to the reality. Written music is the symbolic representation of music I can actually play.

But note too that if we have the 'model' that takes a thought of notes, instead of staffs and dots on paper, there CAN be means to make this happen in principle. The tech that permits reading thoughts that is in its infancy, can do this. We use this in part for those like the late Stephen Hawking, where he looks at certain places that a machine tracks and determines what he means. But we have even modern studies and tech being used to demonstrate 'mind reading'.

It may also be possible to hallucinate the 'sounds' of reality by sparking the brain as neurologists have demonstated. So even if you prefer not to assume a common 'foundation' of Nature's logic (its laws), given you may prefer the practical as all we can deal with, then what does it matter to you to care that there are different machines WE can make that only mimick reality if it is convincing enough?

Tell me what a system would be like that has NO rule about the identity of things.

It would be like a Schrödinger logic. I told you that already.

...still waiting for the axioms. I can be sure to disagree with you from anything I've learned so far in physics regarding quantum mechanics. I'm with Einstein (by my opinion) that believes '(Nature) does not play dice'...we are forced to use statistical methods that utilize probabilities to determine and predict phenomena on the quantum scale. I have an alternative intepretation to the Copenhagen version that explains the slit experiment AND, even if it represents MORE, then any probablities that might appear to be real still would require multiple universes to place those other possibilities in.

Note it is the FACT that an IDENTITY rule exists that matters. You also need a rule of distinction that helps define what identity of one thing is that differs from another, AND, you need to do this in a way that 'playing the game' of this system STICKS to those rules (called, 'consistency'). You are debating the 'art' of reasoning, not the 'science' of it.

I am debating against a flawed assumption in the "foundations" of logic. In the spirit of Quine's Two dogmas of empiricism.

I glanced at it and it is speaking against particular views that themselves would require a digression on. I WAS speaking about a proof on Absolute Nothing here. I am yet uncertain where you stand on this? [or forgot,...given our digressions]

I've already proposed that Nature itself (as Totality) doesn't require 'logic' for being its 'foundation' prior to things like consistency to having meaning. This is where I think we share some views. Some classify these as "Paralogics", which can be understood as meaning what I am meaning. However, I see them still as something we can 'prove' within the system by extensions. The non-contradictions belong to 'consistent' worlds and the contradictions are just complementary to 'consistent' worlds under Totality. People often recreate different philosophies that do not necessarily differ in its 'foundations' but appear so without careful scrutiny.

So if you disagree with my acceptance of the traditional set of the three rules because you think the language is arbitary, then how does it matter THAT I begin on those rules as is? I have no problem showing how something CAN be both 'inconsistent' AND 'real'. The Incompleteness theorems required to prove these. So I don't know your problem here?

Well, If you know of things that are both inconsistent AND real, it trivially means that a logic which forbids inconsistencies discards parts of reality.

Your logic is insufficient for describing reality because it cannot express inconsistencies.

Yes, it can. If you come across a 'contradiciton', you split the logic in two parts. The contradiction remains 'absurd' in the present system, while you open a parallel system that uses the complement as a starting point in another instance of the same logic 'elsewhere'. The nature of it to possibly become infinitely repeatedly split still describes what Totality means beyond the particular universe we are limited to. I've already given the example above using the (X & not-X) versus (X OR not-X) as complementary pairs that 'complete' all possibilities. (Note that 'pair' is likely the related to 'para-' etymologically for paralogics. If one set has a contradiction that in not permitted, a 'para-dox', then there is nothing wrong with splitting the two (or more) extremes into separate universes (or logical universals). Computing now always uses parallel processing (but initiated by that 'master' core, I mentioned before with you.)


You didn't get the point? Machine language of an Intel architecture (its design) is based on the same foundations as any other design. That is, the physics of the components are the same and so still share an underlying logic.

But I used the example just to show that the higher ordered languages may differ but that the core of each machine is rooted in the same 'computer logic'. That is, you are correct about 'alternative' logic of these exist (I know you didn't use this word). But the point was that the architecture of any particular system that can compile different languages, turns them all into the ONE machine language of the particular computer. This is to show that you CAN have a 'foundational logic' (the architecture....or the physics if including other architecture designs). Then the higher order languages can VARY, meaning you can still be 'correct' beyond the foundation. You cannot be arguing for alternative physics within the very same world. That would, without proof, be the same as asserting that some people CAN do things against the normal physics (like real religious-like magic). There is no alternative logic that cannot be reduced further in principle. And for me, with respect to Totality, can be that Absolute Nothing. Even if you say that isn't true, it is 'true' for being 'false' and doesn't affect anything. You just interpret the starting point as having at least two distinct exclusive concepts, like having alternative high-order languages ignoring the concern about what is under the hood.


Absolutely Nothing == (Absolutely Nothing) AND (Absolutely Anything or Everything).

in quantum physics a Qubit is not "two distinct things"! It's a single entity.

And now we have to split reality into two just because you've chosen a shitty logic. That's why I pointed you to Gentzen's cut-free (inductive) proofs.[/quote]
I know the architecture of the damn computers involved. The 'single entity' is designed to use a 3-value boolean logic for its component 'loops' that are networked together with other units of the same to cover more than one 'bit-value' simultaneously. It is artificial reproduction of the ideal that the intepretators of QM presume is real. That assumption that it CAN do miracles beyond using 2-valued logic is begging because while it can do SOME things involving simultaneous evaluations, it requires more energy IN to cool it and a greater unit size 'Qubit' that supercedes the size of the more compactable binary 2-valued bit units.

They are seeking some ability to enable "superconductivity" at higher temperatures (room temperature) but lack any sincere understanding that this cannot be possible, or are being deceptive in some way. If not deceptive, the error relates to the assumptions regarding things like the Big Bang's assignment of the singularity to both exist AND contain all energy that exists at that magical point; also, it can be co-related to an interpretation regarding that Black Holes as ONLY objects that magically absorb things eternally without giving back that energy to the universe here. My own theory covers these issues and why I am addressing Absolute Nothing here. I recognize that many cannot understand this concept. But the very nature of us to become irrational or religous at all suffices to prove why: people presume some SPECIAL foundation to the Universe based on at least 'something' without 'nothing', rather than the other way around (as a foundation).

That you may disagree with 'foundations' wouldn't change the facts regardless. If you are against this, you are like those who favor 'wholistic' things STRICTLY as though there is a complex irreducible set of things in reality.

As for references to the "Two Dogmas of Empiricism', it likely is an indirect argument to keep religion from being touched. A lot of the politics involves trying to keep science from proving CERTAIN foundations to the Universe that might contest their religious views. Thus you get those attempts to undermine interpretations that are 'reduced' to simpler things, of which for certain, an absolute nothing would be perfectly as hated as the Atheist or Nihilistic interpretations.

A classical computer - yes. A quantum computer - no.

Not to mention that parallelism in classical computers is really just a cunning illusion. It's time-sharing.

Although spoken on above, you are wrong here. Each core of a multicore 'chip' can operate independently as muliple computers in parallel. It uses the master core to initiate the parallel processes and then leaves them to later converge where necessary back to the master. I just used the general OS operating multiple processes assuming you'd know what this means as an example. If this is unsatisfying to you, then think of separate computers networked together but doing their own thing. The 'master' can be relative to the user's purpose of going online.

You continue with the mental gymnastics.

When you are using photons as your implementation of a Qubit, where is this "running in parallel" happening exactly?

They are networked loops. Each loop is networked to each other and the loop can hold three values, that mimick the concepts (0, 1, [0 & 1]) or (0, [0&1], 1) [the order can differ depending on architecture]. Above I expressed the third (a contradiction) as a new variable which can thus be represented in the boolean logic as a set of three values. Since the third value can operate as 'spin' values, each loop can hold a single electron, say. Then the the static state is leaving the electron alone and thus be moving anyway it wants to. Electronically, this would appear as having neutral charge. Then, current moving one way around the loop induces it to be spinning one way while current in the opposite direction spins it in the opposite direction. This is utilizing induction. [I cannot speak on 'tunneling' explanations but these are jargon within the field about the same effects I'm describing.]

The reason the loops, made of metal have an issue at normal temperatures is due to the fact that when current CHANGES in the loop, it creates a 'choking' effect to neighboring loops (or other electronics) that resists the changes. The type of alternating current resistance (called impedence) can be reduced by cooling it enough so that the movement of the atoms do not bounce current running through it off creating the induced magnetic fields that is unwelcomed. Thus the 'superconducting' is needed to prevent resistance that creates the induced magnetic field.

Each 'unit' loop is connected variably to other loops that are networked together and still act independently. The combination of each loop would be a power of 3 to the number of 'core' loops. So 9 loops would be 9^3 = 729 possible values. The more of these loops to a 'qubit' permits more value possibilities.

While some think this is a miraculous representation of 'superposition' of all those values, it is just an illusion. We just lack the knowledge of how the particular atoms representing the spins in the center of the loops are without a current in the loops. As soon as the current runs, it can lock in one of the directions it is in at the time.

Technically, this is just more about our lack of being able to KNOW which value exists when not affecting the electrons (or other possible charged particles). I don't approve of how it is being sold using oddly OVERsophisticated jargon and this is no doubt as intentional to keep it less easy to understand without dependence upon the experts. It is no different than how companies using proprietary information to create technology might utilize intentional fuzziness or complication to the designs they create independent of outsiders. They can also 'patent' the particular design while it is somewhat 'encrypted' by the inside jargon used permitting them formal recognition while simultaneously hiding the actual simplicity that it may entail from the patent personel and other outsiders looking at it.

So you are insisting that P=NP....

? Use plain language if these are initials of something. If it means a reasignment of P to become PN, where N is a some function that changes P, then it MAY be used to extend (or split) the logic.

Assignment versus Equality is NOT about the Identity law, by the way, something you may be assuming about the 'equality' sign that can be used. The assignment of usually the right side to the left side relates to different times and this CAN be represented statically in principle. In computer logic, the normal Functions are called, "combinational" and means that the outputs have a unique output upon simultaneous inputs. The next stage involves adding combinational units that feedback on itself that can ALTER the 'function' in time, called 'sequential' circuits (for a sequence in time of changing inputs. Some outputs can loop back as inputs that make the overall 'function' variable but dependent upon a 'sequence' of inputs.

Ahhhhh, so to you time doesn't matter. If one system can do X in 10^10000000 years and another system can do X in 1 second, they are "the same" to you?

Practicality of design doesn't mean the underlying logic is unrelated. As I've already shown a few times in this very post, you can begin with a base logic that is universal and extend it. In the last example, sequential devices permit CHANGE of the very function of the same 'static' electronics. You can also make a 'universal' gate that then can be controlled to change depending upon various possible outputs-to-inputs mimicking the change of 'states' related to quantum value changes. The LOGIC is thus true and universal but can be implemented 'harmonically'. Here "harmonics", from music, means to have two or more notes playing simultaneously. But here I'm speaking of how say a core logic can be repeated at different levels, like how the C++ language may use "==" as comparing equality of value that makes it 'true' or 'false' also has this logic feature on the machine level architecture. Or, ....how the solar system can have logical macro-level logic that is just a repeat of the electrons orbiting an atom. [Just a comparison and not meant to be precisely true here.]

The rest of your post need not be responded to as it is either discussed above directly or indirectly nullifies the issues there.

[Scott Mayers]

Go ahead and keep writing. I am not censoring you, though I am 'censuring' (rebuking) you. If you have something more friendly to respond to that lacks the cues of distraction, I'll respond. Otherwise, I have to pass over what you initially say in a those mile-long posts. It's just practical sense.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN, EVIDENCED, and PROVEN in my last reply and post to 'you', in this thread, is EXACTLY HOW I have COUNTERED YOUR "argument" and CLAIM here.

I have ALREADY SHOWN HOW and WHY your argument is NOT sound NOR valid as well as SHOWED HOW and WHY your claim is SO WRONG.

Now, 'you' may NOT have liked this, but either ACCEPT this, or, COUNTER it. But please REFRAIN from whinging AND complaining about this.

ALL 'you' are REALLY CLAIMING and arguing for IS:
BEFORE 'Something' or 'Everything' came into existence, there was ABSOLUTELY 'Nothing'.

Now if 'this' IS WRONG, then CORRECT IT.

And, ALL 'I' am REALLY SAYING IS;
IF you want to CLAIM 'this', then PROVE there was an 'origin', and then PROVE that at that 'origin' there was Absolutely Nothing, absolutely existing.

So, what is with EVERY 'thing' else 'you' have spent so much "time" and "effort" saying AND writing here.

IF 'you' do NOT NOW CLAIM what 'you' were at the start of this thread, then so be it. That is PERFECTLY FINE and UNDERSTANDABLE. But, back tracking AND distracting is NOT helping 'you' AT ALL here.

Also, is it only 'me' with the, so called, "mile-long posts".

[Look at the prior post you wrote to me. I only need this last comment near the long post to respond to. The rest is discussing how we communicate and not on topic. Let's just move on.]

To save me time, look at the other conversations I'm having for some of your answers if what I now say is insufficient. I already expressed that the meaning of 'origin' is an unfortunate one because the concept Absolutely Nothing LACKS time and so is everywhere and nowhere all at once. It would also be a root cause of 'time' itself for time being irrelevant where law and order lack "existence".

Absolutely Nothing, as I've compared above to Veritas, can be compared to the background media, like a the blank canvass of paper or the background on this forum of our posts that we use black colored characters in contrast to represent Absolutely Something while the 'white spaces' [not necessarily 'white'] happens to be what is necessary to define characters including the spaces between words or other paragraphs; these are the Relative Nothings that though require meaning by contasting the black print from the background, are distinctfully meaningful. Then Absolutely Everything is the infinite possible pages or continuum of the length of a thread. All three define Totality but ONLY the Absolute Nothing can stand alone: The media has to pre-exist or the content is not able to be expressed.

The same goes with reality as a whole.

The argument FROM an 'origin' would be something like:

(0) Totality is Absolutely Nothing
(1) But rule (0) is at least a something and so is Totality. So Totality has now not only nothing by (0), but Totality as ONE thing and this fact representing TWO things.
(2) But we need to add (1) in the count and this fact makes THREE things.
(3) But since rule (2) adds another fact, we have FOUR things.
(4) But since rule (3) adds another fact, we have FIVE things.
(5) But since rule (4) adds another fact, we have SIX things.
....
(∞) But since rule (∞-1) adds another fact. we have ∞ + 1 things.
....
(∞^∞) But since the rule before this one adds another fact, we have the Continuum.

Absolutely Nothing is able to manifest Absolutely Everything continuously. So each finite proposal or Absolute Ones also exist in the Continuum.

Note that I used time-based terms which is simply difficult to express in our languages by everyday standards. All of the above including all of Totality that may not be included here is without time or 'instantaneously' real as a whole, including all times of all worlds, spaces and matter.