The Logic Behind Everything and Nothing

[Eodnhoj7]

This can be observed when the laws of logic self-reference in certain degrees. Either the law of identity (equality) or the law of non-contradiction (non-equality) exists when the law of excluded middle is applied to them. If the law of identity is true, and law of non-contradiction is false, then A=A and A=-A (the actual is equal to the non-actual). Under these terms A equals everything. If non-contradiction is true, and the law of identity is false, then A=/=-A but A=/=A (A does not equal anything; if A were to equal B or C it could not because B or C would be the equivalent of saying, at the meta level, A=A if B or C is A). Under these terms A equals nothing.

Either there is everything or there is nothing and this 'or' nature to the argument necessitates a choice thus manifesting the question of "everything or nothing?" as fundamentally a subjective grasp of reality. This subjective nature necessitates the answer to the question as fundamentally random.

[Agent Smith]

Are you experiencing any aches and pains, sir/madam, as the case may be?

Tylenol 500 mg TID × 5 days, if you are.

[Age]

This can be observed when the laws of logic self-reference in certain degrees. Either the law of identity (equality) or the law of non-contradiction (non-equality) exists when the law of excluded middle is applied to them. If the law of identity is true, and law of non-contradiction is false, then A=A and A=-A (the actual is equal to the non-actual). Under these terms A equals everything. If non-contradiction is true, and the law of identity is false, then A=/=-A but A=/=A (A does not equal anything; if A were to equal B or C it could not because B or C would be the equivalent of saying, at the meta level, A=A if B or C is A). Under these terms A equals nothing.

Either there is everything or there is nothing and this 'or' nature to the argument necessitates a choice thus manifesting the question of "everything or nothing?" as fundamentally a subjective grasp of reality. This subjective nature necessitates the answer to the question as fundamentally random.

OR, there IS the OTHER 'thing', which we CAN CHOOSE FRO, and, which by the way, IS the ACTUAL, and IRREFUTABLE, Truth of 'things'.

The above written under the label "eodnoj7" is just NONSENSE, and VERY MISLEADING I will add.

[Harbal]

This can be observed when the laws of logic self-reference in certain degrees. Either the law of identity (equality) or the law of non-contradiction (non-equality) exists when the law of excluded middle is applied to them. If the law of identity is true, and law of non-contradiction is false, then A=A and A=-A (the actual is equal to the non-actual). Under these terms A equals everything. If non-contradiction is true, and the law of identity is false, then A=/=-A but A=/=A (A does not equal anything; if A were to equal B or C it could not because B or C would be the equivalent of saying, at the meta level, A=A if B or C is A). Under these terms A equals nothing.

Either there is everything or there is nothing and this 'or' nature to the argument necessitates a choice thus manifesting the question of "everything or nothing?" as fundamentally a subjective grasp of reality. This subjective nature necessitates the answer to the question as fundamentally random.

I'm not very good at this sort of stuff, but I'm good enough at it to be able to tell that you are even worse.

[Agent Smith]

This can be observed when the laws of logic self-reference in certain degrees. Either the law of identity (equality) or the law of non-contradiction (non-equality) exists when the law of excluded middle is applied to them. If the law of identity is true, and law of non-contradiction is false, then A=A and A=-A (the actual is equal to the non-actual). Under these terms A equals everything. If non-contradiction is true, and the law of identity is false, then A=/=-A but A=/=A (A does not equal anything; if A were to equal B or C it could not because B or C would be the equivalent of saying, at the meta level, A=A if B or C is A). Under these terms A equals nothing.

Either there is everything or there is nothing and this 'or' nature to the argument necessitates a choice thus manifesting the question of "everything or nothing?" as fundamentally a subjective grasp of reality. This subjective nature necessitates the answer to the question as fundamentally random.

I'm not very good at this sort of stuff, but I'm good enough at it to be able to tell that you are even worse.

You're wrong!

1. For all x(if x is bad, Agent smith is worse than x)

2. For all x(if x is a person and x is the worst then x = Agent Smith)

Everything & Nothing ... then there's also Something. God have mercy on our souls!

[Eodnhoj7]

This can be observed when the laws of logic self-reference in certain degrees. Either the law of identity (equality) or the law of non-contradiction (non-equality) exists when the law of excluded middle is applied to them. If the law of identity is true, and law of non-contradiction is false, then A=A and A=-A (the actual is equal to the non-actual). Under these terms A equals everything. If non-contradiction is true, and the law of identity is false, then A=/=-A but A=/=A (A does not equal anything; if A were to equal B or C it could not because B or C would be the equivalent of saying, at the meta level, A=A if B or C is A). Under these terms A equals nothing.

Either there is everything or there is nothing and this 'or' nature to the argument necessitates a choice thus manifesting the question of "everything or nothing?" as fundamentally a subjective grasp of reality. This subjective nature necessitates the answer to the question as fundamentally random.

OR, there IS the OTHER 'thing', which we CAN CHOOSE FRO, and, which by the way, IS the ACTUAL, and IRREFUTABLE, Truth of 'things'.

The above written under the label "eodnoj7" is just NONSENSE, and VERY MISLEADING I will add.

If it was nonsense then it would not be misleading as it has to make some sense in order to mislead. On the other hand ff course it is non-sense, the logic behind the laws of logic self-negates these very same laws when self-referencing.

[Eodnhoj7]

This can be observed when the laws of logic self-reference in certain degrees. Either the law of identity (equality) or the law of non-contradiction (non-equality) exists when the law of excluded middle is applied to them. If the law of identity is true, and law of non-contradiction is false, then A=A and A=-A (the actual is equal to the non-actual). Under these terms A equals everything. If non-contradiction is true, and the law of identity is false, then A=/=-A but A=/=A (A does not equal anything; if A were to equal B or C it could not because B or C would be the equivalent of saying, at the meta level, A=A if B or C is A). Under these terms A equals nothing.

Either there is everything or there is nothing and this 'or' nature to the argument necessitates a choice thus manifesting the question of "everything or nothing?" as fundamentally a subjective grasp of reality. This subjective nature necessitates the answer to the question as fundamentally random.

I'm not very good at this sort of stuff, but I'm good enough at it to be able to tell that you are even worse.

The laws of logic contradict when applied to themselves....that is all you need to know. If one is true then the other is false when the law of excluded middle is applied to them.

[Eodnhoj7]

This can be observed when the laws of logic self-reference in certain degrees. Either the law of identity (equality) or the law of non-contradiction (non-equality) exists when the law of excluded middle is applied to them. If the law of identity is true, and law of non-contradiction is false, then A=A and A=-A (the actual is equal to the non-actual). Under these terms A equals everything. If non-contradiction is true, and the law of identity is false, then A=/=-A but A=/=A (A does not equal anything; if A were to equal B or C it could not because B or C would be the equivalent of saying, at the meta level, A=A if B or C is A). Under these terms A equals nothing.

Either there is everything or there is nothing and this 'or' nature to the argument necessitates a choice thus manifesting the question of "everything or nothing?" as fundamentally a subjective grasp of reality. This subjective nature necessitates the answer to the question as fundamentally random.

I'm not very good at this sort of stuff, but I'm good enough at it to be able to tell that you are even worse.

You're wrong!

1. For all x(if x is bad, Agent smith is worse than x)

2. For all x(if x is a person and x is the worst then x = Agent Smith)

Everything & Nothing ... then there's also Something. God have mercy on our souls!

Do you understand my argument?

[Agent Smith]

This can be observed when the laws of logic self-reference in certain degrees. Either the law of identity (equality) or the law of non-contradiction (non-equality) exists when the law of excluded middle is applied to them. If the law of identity is true, and law of non-contradiction is false, then A=A and A=-A (the actual is equal to the non-actual). Under these terms A equals everything. If non-contradiction is true, and the law of identity is false, then A=/=-A but A=/=A (A does not equal anything; if A were to equal B or C it could not because B or C would be the equivalent of saying, at the meta level, A=A if B or C is A). Under these terms A equals nothing.

Either there is everything or there is nothing and this 'or' nature to the argument necessitates a choice thus manifesting the question of "everything or nothing?" as fundamentally a subjective grasp of reality. This subjective nature necessitates the answer to the question as fundamentally random.

Nice moves, fancy footwork there mon ami, You seem to have grasped the logical essence of your claim!

[Age]

This can be observed when the laws of logic self-reference in certain degrees. Either the law of identity (equality) or the law of non-contradiction (non-equality) exists when the law of excluded middle is applied to them. If the law of identity is true, and law of non-contradiction is false, then A=A and A=-A (the actual is equal to the non-actual). Under these terms A equals everything. If non-contradiction is true, and the law of identity is false, then A=/=-A but A=/=A (A does not equal anything; if A were to equal B or C it could not because B or C would be the equivalent of saying, at the meta level, A=A if B or C is A). Under these terms A equals nothing.

Either there is everything or there is nothing and this 'or' nature to the argument necessitates a choice thus manifesting the question of "everything or nothing?" as fundamentally a subjective grasp of reality. This subjective nature necessitates the answer to the question as fundamentally random.

OR, there IS the OTHER 'thing', which we CAN CHOOSE FRO, and, which by the way, IS the ACTUAL, and IRREFUTABLE, Truth of 'things'.

The above written under the label "eodnoj7" is just NONSENSE, and VERY MISLEADING I will add.

If it was nonsense then it would not be misleading as it has to make some sense in order to mislead.

Is that so?

Is it NOT possible to MISLEAD some of the people, some of the time, with what IS, essentially, ACTUALLY NONSENSE?

Now, if what IS ACTUALLY NONSENSE, makes sense to some people, then this STILL does NOT take away from the Fact (of) 'what IS'.

On the other hand ff course it is non-sense, the logic behind the laws of logic self-negates these very same laws when self-referencing.

If you say and BELIEVE so, then 'it' MUST BE so, right?

[Agent Smith]

OR, there IS the OTHER 'thing', which we CAN CHOOSE FRO, and, which by the way, IS the ACTUAL, and IRREFUTABLE, Truth of 'things'.

The above written under the label "eodnoj7" is just NONSENSE, and VERY MISLEADING I will add.

If it was nonsense then it would not be misleading as it has to make some sense in order to mislead.

Is that so?

Is it NOT possible to MISLEAD some of the people, some of the time, with what IS, essentially, ACTUALLY NONSENSE?

Now, if what IS ACTUALLY NONSENSE, makes sense to some people, then this STILL does NOT take away from the Fact (of) 'what IS'.

On the other hand ff course it is non-sense, the logic behind the laws of logic self-negates these very same laws when self-referencing.

If you say and BELIEVE so, then 'it' MUST BE so, right?

You have a point, but - there's always a but, right? - as far as I'm concerned the OP gets a 7/10 in mental gymnastics! That's a gold-medal score, oui?

[Age]

If it was nonsense then it would not be misleading as it has to make some sense in order to mislead.

Is that so?

Is it NOT possible to MISLEAD some of the people, some of the time, with what IS, essentially, ACTUALLY NONSENSE?

Now, if what IS ACTUALLY NONSENSE, makes sense to some people, then this STILL does NOT take away from the Fact (of) 'what IS'.

On the other hand ff course it is non-sense, the logic behind the laws of logic self-negates these very same laws when self-referencing.

If you say and BELIEVE so, then 'it' MUST BE so, right?

You have a point, but - there's always a but, right?

No, BUT some might think or BELIEVE there is.

- as far as I'm concerned the OP gets a 7/10 in mental gymnastics! That's a gold-medal score, oui?

[Agent Smith]

Is that so?

Is it NOT possible to MISLEAD some of the people, some of the time, with what IS, essentially, ACTUALLY NONSENSE?

Now, if what IS ACTUALLY NONSENSE, makes sense to some people, then this STILL does NOT take away from the Fact (of) 'what IS'.


If you say and BELIEVE so, then 'it' MUST BE so, right?

You have a point, but - there's always a but, right?

No, BUT some might think or BELIEVE there is.

- as far as I'm concerned the OP gets a 7/10 in mental gymnastics! That's a gold-medal score, oui?

You're the future mon ami ... one of the branches on which philosophy terminates. Nice to meet you sir/ma'am as the case may be.


As you can see philosophy is, the OP included, simply rearranging the furniture in yer house- a walk in the park, easy peasy!

[Age]

You have a point, but - there's always a but, right?

No, BUT some might think or BELIEVE there is.

- as far as I'm concerned the OP gets a 7/10 in mental gymnastics! That's a gold-medal score, oui?

You're the future mon ami ... one of the branches on which philosophy terminates. Nice to meet you sir/ma'am as the case may be.


As you can see philosophy is, the OP included, simply rearranging the furniture in yer house- a walk in the park, easy peasy!

To me EVERY human being is born a Natural and True 'philosopher', and HAVING 'philosophy' IS UNAVOIDABLE. BUT, which, VERY SADLY, gets LOST, MISPLACED, and REPLACED 'aling the way' by UNKNOWINGLY and UNINTENTIONALLY Wrong DOING ADULTS who end up turning those True 'philosophers' INTO Truly STUPID ASSUMING and BELIEVING adults human beings.

It is BECAUSE if being born WITH and HAVING the True love-of-wisdom and HAVING the ABILITY to LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and REASON ANY and EVERY 'thing' children, AGAIN VERY SADLY, and VERY UNFORTUNATELY, end up COPYING, and growing INTO, adult human beings.

[Dontaskme]

To me EVERY human being is born a Natural and True 'philosopher', and HAVING 'philosophy' IS UNAVOIDABLE. BUT, which, VERY SADLY, gets LOST, MISPLACED, and REPLACED 'aling the way' by UNKNOWINGLY and UNINTENTIONALLY Wrong DOING ADULTS who end up turning those True 'philosophers' INTO Truly STUPID ASSUMING and BELIEVING adults human beings.

It is BECAUSE if being born WITH and HAVING the True love-of-wisdom and HAVING the ABILITY to LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and REASON ANY and EVERY 'thing' children, AGAIN VERY SADLY, and VERY UNFORTUNATELY, end up COPYING, and growing INTO, adult human beings.

The only thing the 'human being' needs to understand as a philosopher, via ''thought'' is that everything is fundamentally nothing ( no thought required to understand this ) nothing is known AS AND THROUGH the experience of being aware, it is known via experience that ( being aware is simply self-evident, effortless and requires no thought to be )

That understood,is to simply know you know nothing, and yet to know you know nothing, is to also know everything,which can only be the same as nothingness at it's fundamental base level. It's only ''thought'' that seemingly changes NOTHINGNESS into SOMETHING or EVERYTHING.

The empty SILENT space between all ''thought'' is all there is to know, meaning, there is nothing knowing every THOUGHT ....meaning all ''thought'' is fundamentally empty, only appearing as something, meaning, 'thoughts' are appearances in the same context every dream is an appearance of something, full of images and stories, which are in essence quite inanimate, and yet appear animate, biological, and seemingly psychological and spiritual....in this apparent conception, nothing is making.

There is here, now here, nowhere, only nothing being everything, and that's all there is to understand. Philosophy and philosophizing goes nowhere, because there is nowhere else to go.

The ultimate point of view is that there is nothing to understand, so when we try to understand, we are only indulging in acrobatics of the mind.