Testing the Totality of the Universe

You know, 9x, I guess I did an ugly influence on your philosophy. When you had entered there your style was more incredibly abstracted and more detailed, and now it doesn't seem to be like in those times. I'm really sorry.

What I can't say I am agree is that when I intend to claim that "All that exists" at the same time I'm uttering that "Nothingness" includes to this set. There is a historical background on it from the side of the proposition appearing. They say that understanding of pauses, blanks, links, etc made the proposition to be aimed as it is now. Anyway, the common sense says that if I utter "All that exists" I utter modality too: "All that possible to exists", "All that is possible to be called that it exists", and so on. All these grades must be included to the set, because the grades exist too. But the disappearing character of grades = disappearing waves, echoes... = is what comes to Nothingness, or, perhaps, is leaning to it endlessly.

But, ok, let's say that Nothingness doesn't belong to the set that lays behind "All that exists". Then to what such disappearing waves come? What the destination of theirs? And why such a destination can't be included to the set we've been discussing?

Nothingness exists.
We can prove this because most functional math uses the 'zero',
and it does so with astonishing effectiveness in prediction and fabrication.

And yet the statement:
Nothingness exists
appears entirely contradictory to itself.

The paradox can only be reconciled when we observe
that nothingness exists only in abstract thought,
and not in the physical world itself.

So thoughts are to a certain extent, non-physical.
They are also 'meta-physical' because they contain
that which is beyond the physical.

If there are such functions that allow one set of phenomena change to the others, why there couldn't be found a function of including Nothingness to the "All that exists"? What should hold us from such a view? Allowing such functions of change to exist we make our "All that exists" to be Meinong's Jungles.

Metaphysical Pseudo-Statements by Rudolph Carnap (link: Carnap - Elimination of Metaphysics With Logical Analysis)

Let's take a look at some examples of metaphysical pseudo-statements of a kind where the violation of logical syntax is especially obvious... We select a few sentences [in Heidegger's style]:

"What is to be investigated is being only and—nothing else; being alone and further—nothing; solely being, and beyond being— nothing. What about this Nothing? . . . Does the Nothing exist only because the Not, i.e. the Negation, exists? Or is it the other way around? Does Negation and the Not exist only because the Nothing exists? . . . We assert: the Nothing is prior to the Not and the Negation. . . . Where do we seek the Nothing? How do we find the Nothing. . . . We know the Nothing. . . . Anxiety reveals the Nothing. . . . That for which and because of which we were anxious, was 'really'—nothing. Indeed: the Nothing itself—as such—was present. . . . What about this Nothing?—The Nothing itself nothings."

In order to show that the possibility of forming pseudo-statements is based on a logical defect of language, we set up the schema below. The sentences under I are grammatically as well as logically impeccable, hence meaningful. The sentences under II (excepting B3) are in grammatical respects perfectly analogous to those under I. Sentence form IIA (as question and answer) does not, indeed, satisfy the requirements to be imposed on a logically correct language. But it is nevertheless meaningful, because it is translatable into correct language. This is shown by sentence IIIA, which has the same meaning as IIA. Sentence form IIA then proves to be undesirable because we can be led from it, by means of grammatically faultless operations, to the meaningless sentence forms IIB, which are taken from the above quotation. These forms cannot even be constructed in the correct language of Column III. Nonetheless, their nonsensicality is not obvious at first glance, because one is easily deceived by the analogy with the meaningful sentences IB. The fault of our language identified here lies, therefore, in the circumstance that, in contrast to a logically correct language, it admits of the same grammatical form for meaningful and meaningless word sequences. To each sentence in words we have added a corresponding formula in the notation of symbolic logic; these formulae facilitate recognition of the undesirable analogy between IA and IIA and therewith of the origin of the meaningless constructions IIB.


On closer inspection of the pseudo-statements under IIB, we also find some differences. The construction of sentence (1) is simply based on the mistake of employing the word "nothing" as a noun, because it is customary in ordinary language to use it in this form in order to construct a negative existential statement (see IIA). In a correct language, on the other hand, it is not a particular name, but a certain logical form of the sentence that serves this purpose (see IIIA). Sentence IIB2 adds something new, viz. the fabrication of the meaningless word "to nothing." This sentence, therefore, is senseless for a twofold reason. We pointed out before that the meaningless words of metaphysics usually owe their origin to the fact that a meaningful word is deprived of its meaning through its metaphorical use in metaphysics. But here we confront one of those rare cases where a new word is introduced which never had a meaning to begin with. Likewise sentence IIB3 must be rejected for two reasons. In respect of the error of using the word "nothing" as a noun, it is like the previous sentences. But in addition it involves a contradiction. For even if it were admissible to introduce "nothing" as a name or description of an entity, still the existence of this entity would be denied in its very definition, whereas sentence (3) goes on to affirm its existence. This sentence, therefore, would be contradictory, hence absurd, even if it were not already meaningless.

In view of the gross logical errors which we find in sentences IIB, we might be led to conjecture that perhaps the word "nothing" has in Heidegger's treatise a meaning entirely different from the customary one. And this presumption is further strengthened as we go on to read there that anxiety reveals the Nothing, that the Nothing itself is present as such in anxiety. For here the word "nothing" seems to refer to a certain emotional constitution, possibly of a religious sort, or something or other that underlies such emotions. If such were the case, then the mentioned logical errors in sentences IIB would not be committed. But the first sentence of the quotation at the beginning of this section proves that this interpretation is not possible. The combination of "only" and "nothing else" shows unmistakably that the word "nothing" here has the usual meaning of a logical particle that serves for the formulation of a negative existential statement. This introduction of the word "nothing" is then immediately followed by the leading question of the treatise: "What about this Nothing?".

Tell me, are your theories completely non-falsifiable? It doesn't matter what objection one shows you always have an answer. It concerns whether your theories are indeed true?

0. Yeah, I understand you. According to such a view all the false sentences are true, because they represent something that is showing "falseness". But it matters what is taken into account as "lack" of something and what is taken as "filled". I mean we draw a mental line here. It's like it's our duty to do it. Our brains seem to have no other routes, except for drawing lines aka limiting to understand something (e.g. a. "I know I know nothing"; then b. "<<I know nothing>> is something", then c. "Knowing nothing I know something that might be the start point to make any other conclusions"), however it's just a narrative form, a plot that indeed doesn't have such representations. We used to use imaginative, colorful, bright, etc forms to answer about our thoughts, but the palette we use contain the colors we have in our "mental pockets". Briefly, metaphors or similar rhetoric words are necessary, because such words fill the gaps between our thoughts. 

1. Maybe you can intuitively watch such a coincidence, but not me. I don't see any good relations between a blank paper and a point. And moreover, the existent point. What makes me think that point exists??

2. How can a single point (or, anything else in our reality) negates itself? Does it have tiny hands to do something that might be call as "the negation" comparatively to the rebuilding, or putting bricks together, etc? If you use metaphors, how should one understand your explanation? Because it's not obvious. - But, must say that surely I exaggerate these counterarguments, metaphysically it somehow might be comprehended, and in turn to be formed; I don't see this formation. 
All the relations between points, planes, and lines are not obvious. Why not to say that a point is screaming loudly, while making itself shaking it transforms into plural number (because of mirroring wave of this process - if we'd draw this curve in Decrates's), and then becoming a plane like a plane in the sky... 

3. Adverbs like "contrast", and verbs like "sits" are these words the only ones we can use here? How accurately they draw this image to its formed, whole and gathered final picture?

"The "formlessness of formlessness" is a double negative thus resulting in form. Only form exists" - this doesn't seem to be obvious. Carnap shew that the rules determined our understanding. We can't just pass it away as we'd like to do it. Logic tries to stay neutral to ontology, however it dictates us how should we use our language to not to get lost in the chambers and vaults of language. So, instead of wandering around logic proposes us what material need to be used to construct an idea or another. - Must say, here I can't be pretty sure about something, so no firm statements I can to add.

And at the same time to the forms: I can agree that a form being related with another form gives, as something to be obvious, another (the 3rd) form. And when you engage some concepts as "double negation" here, I don't even know which one should be put there. Indeed, there are some:

- "double negation" as an artist's or a director's style/method;
- "double negation" as a reaction of the Intuitivism in Math movement, that it needs to be prohibited using ad absurdum method of proof;
- "double negation" as a linguistic maneuver to impress, or to accent something;
- "double negation" as an interpolation of waves (in Physics), and finally:
- "double negation" as it uses in many logical system: one variable function that is taken twice.

4. The change changes itself? Okay, so what that "change" is? Usually the change (taken not as a currency meaning, of course) is what taken wholly, as a description of some things. We can count some things, some deities in some order, and that how the change can be described. For instance, <a, b, c, ..., z> is as an alphabet. So, {xi} changes starting from a through all the letters to z, and i relates to a position of a letter in the ordered set. And it doesn't really matter which exactly function is put to i: i+1, or i-(i²+1), etc, because what we do need is to have one of the functions that relate to i. 

And if, for the example sake, you write two times what represent "the change" you'll got just a double form of it:

{<a, b, c, ..., z>,<a, b, c, ..., z>}

To double negate it we need "the negation" too. 

Anyway, all such representations are not really obvious. There are no solid and trust common places to which all that can be addressed.

xxxxxxxxx

Ok, then, so how do you hope to fund anything? The falsification as well as another (all of them) methods are not the ultimate truth, and it doesn't seem unclear. Also, it's kinda exaggeration from my side, as I said about it last time, - to ask how to prove your position or what criteria do you use, but such a way is overspeaded, everyone with no exceptions does the same. For the investigation sake such wavely and curvy ways are taken by everyone.

In opposite way, your investigation is blind. It might be you typing just the first things which come into your mind.
Maybe you have a strong intuition or many talents, so it might help you to type things, however how can it be trustable?

Abstractions like "form forms", "void voids" are not obvious, because it's neither relate to the outer world (i.e. no examples there), nor mathematically suited. Hence, no chances to claim anything convincible about these objects.