|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 28, 2021 1:02:55 GMT
To prove nothing is to prove nothing at all thus no proof exists. The absence of proof for nothing is necessitated by the nature of nothing at including proof as fundamentally nothing. Considering there is no proof for "nothing" nothing cannot be disproven either given an absence of proof for nothing is in itself nothing.
Nothing can neither be proven nor disproven but rather taken axiomatically as this axiomatic nature reflects the same absence of form in which a form impresses itself upon. Axioms are taken on nothing, given no thought is evident behind the axiom for it is strictly taken "as is" without anything behind it. The axiom is rooted in nothing thus nothing is axiomatic.
This axiomatic nature can neither be proven or disproven.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 28, 2021 4:36:18 GMT
Yes, exactly. I guess Heidegger should care about this point first. Left it unsolved his theory appeared to be partial and incomplete.
This is really interesting proof I've ever seen. Usually my objection to it ends on: since we don't know 'nothing', we can't deny that there are more than one 'nothing' or even that 'nothing' could be 'something'.
Comparing 'nothing' to axioms makes this be more intriguing. And this ends in complete scepticism.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 28, 2021 4:58:11 GMT
I agree with you that nothing cannot be proven because that would require something in order to prove it and if it had something then it would definitely not be nothing therefore you can't tangibly prove a non tangible.
However because only something exists and no one can experience nothing that logically means that it is wiser to assume nothing is just a concept then to assume nothing exist given the fact that is all we have is something
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 28, 2021 7:11:42 GMT
I agree with you that nothing cannot be proven because that would require something in order to prove it and if it had something then it would definitely not be nothing therefore you can't tangibly prove a non tangible. However because only something exists and no one can experience nothing that logically means that it is wiser to assume nothing is just a concept then to assume nothing exist given the fact that is all we have is something Yeah, it reminds the famous questions 'why there's something, and not nothing?'. www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-allI guess there's something even more funny here: how to prove nothing being out of it? Ot, in other words, how to prove something having no access to it? -- It's like to prove 'the Russell's teapot' out there. So, this is absolutely impossible, and (!) at the same time this impossibility shows that that 'impossibility' is at our hands (or minds). Because -- how can we figure it out that there is Nothing, even though that Nothing is a concept?
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 28, 2021 15:35:19 GMT
The very fact that this computer is working, hinges on the fact that the concept of "zero" is functional. Without it there can be no mathematics or computation.
The moment you even attempt any answer to this on your PC, you prove that the concept of nothing (zero) exists.
But to say "nothing exists" is an extreme paradox; almost a contradiction, until you appreciate that nothing existing as a concept, is entirely different to it existing in the physical world. (It cannot).
Thus we can only resolve this paradox with dualism. The realm of concepts is ontologically separate the the realm of the physical world.
Mind is fundamentally separate to body.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 28, 2021 16:19:21 GMT
The very fact that this computer is working, hinges on the fact that the concept of "zero" is functional. Without it there can be no mathematics or computation. The moment you even attempt any answer to this on your PC, you prove that the concept of nothing (zero) exists. But to say "nothing exists" is an extreme paradox; almost a contradiction, until you appreciate that nothing existing as a concept, is entirely different to it existing in the physical world. (It cannot). Thus we can only resolve this paradox with dualism. The realm of concepts is ontologically separate the the realm of the physical world. Mind is fundamentally separate to body. Exactly! Zero is nothing. And at the same time if to say that zero is some kind of a balance: "if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction: FA = −FB.[8] The third law means that all forces are interactions between different"Just like the third law of Newton. I mean instead of referring to Nothing or Zero we might see it as a certain balance.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 28, 2021 16:42:22 GMT
The very fact that this computer is working, hinges on the fact that the concept of "zero" is functional. Without it there can be no mathematics or computation. The moment you even attempt any answer to this on your PC, you prove that the concept of nothing (zero) exists. But to say "nothing exists" is an extreme paradox; almost a contradiction, until you appreciate that nothing existing as a concept, is entirely different to it existing in the physical world. (It cannot). Thus we can only resolve this paradox with dualism. The realm of concepts is ontologically separate the the realm of the physical world. Mind is fundamentally separate to body. Exactly! Zero is nothing. And at the same time if to say that zero is some kind of a balance: "if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction: FA = −FB.[8] The third law means that all forces are interactions between different"Just like the third law of Newton. I mean instead of referring to Nothing or Zero we might see it as a certain balance. Its weird, huh? If two objects heading towards each other have a 'perfect' collision, then they stop and there is no movement and thus no energy, then their combined energy adds up to zero. But if they are zero then it follows than nothing can result in infinite energy in both directions.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 28, 2021 16:57:11 GMT
Exactly! Zero is nothing. And at the same time if to say that zero is some kind of a balance: "if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction: FA = −FB.[8] The third law means that all forces are interactions between different"Just like the third law of Newton. I mean instead of referring to Nothing or Zero we might see it as a certain balance. Its weird, huh? If two objects heading towards each other have a 'perfect' collision, then they stop and there is no movement and thus no energy, then their combined energy adds up to zero. But if they are zero then it follows than nothing can result in infinite energy in both directions.
confused1
Not being a physicist I may be wrong, so that's why I don't insist this example is a good one. What I attempted to say was that the result of the movement of those two objects was zero; however, it could be that at the point of their "meeting" many energy emissioned, i.e. something like that: the voltage was high, while there was no current work. The pure zero, I consider, is impossible, because of oxymoron: "nothing exists" that supposes something to be "mixed" to Nothing.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 28, 2021 17:05:34 GMT
Its weird, huh? If two objects heading towards each other have a 'perfect' collision, then they stop and there is no movement and thus no energy, then their combined energy adds up to zero. But if they are zero then it follows than nothing can result in infinite energy in both directions. Not being a physicist I may be wrong, so that's why I don't insist this example is a good one. What I attempted to say was that the result of the movement of those two objects was zero; however, it could be that at the point of their "meeting" many energy emissioned, i.e. something like that: the voltage was high, while there was no current work. The pure zero, I consider, is impossible, because of oxymoron: "nothing exists" that supposes something to be "mixed" to Nothing.
i would not dare even discuss philosophy with a physicist the only thing a physicist comprehends is the physical foot kicking his posterior
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 28, 2021 17:21:27 GMT
Not being a physicist I may be wrong, so that's why I don't insist this example is a good one. What I attempted to say was that the result of the movement of those two objects was zero; however, it could be that at the point of their "meeting" many energy emissioned, i.e. something like that: the voltage was high, while there was no current work. The pure zero, I consider, is impossible, because of oxymoron: "nothing exists" that supposes something to be "mixed" to Nothing.
i would not dare even discuss philosophy with a physicist the only thing a physicist comprehends is the physical foot kicking his posterior
Oh, I took physicists in general. Surely, it was more healthy those days when physics was comprehended as 'the Natural Philosophy'. Also, mathematically for any x, 0=x+(-x). So, just conceptually we can have 'x+(-x)' instead of '0'. And here we might achieving '0' while there might be some unseen processes, and, hence, the more real would be 'x+(-x)', than '0'. I mean we can rewrite 'x+(-x)' to '0', but it would be an interpretation. To decide which interpretation is correct I think we need a series of tests or something. I don't really know.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 28, 2021 17:50:50 GMT
i would not dare even discuss philosophy with a physicist the only thing a physicist comprehends is the physical foot kicking his posterior
Oh, I took physicists in general. Surely, it was more healthy those days when physics was comprehended as 'the Natural Philosophy'. Also, mathematically for any x, 0=x+(-x). So, just conceptually we can have 'x+(-x)' instead of '0'. And here we might achieving '0' while there might be some unseen processes, and, hence, the more real would be 'x+(-x)', than '0'. I mean we can rewrite 'x+(-x)' to '0', but it would be an interpretation. To decide which interpretation is correct I think we need a series of tests or something. I don't really know. Better to use real words.
If you have 5 dollars, and I am in debt 5 dollars, does it follow that between us there is no money at all?
Of course not.
The quantitative and qualitative are different in every possible ontological way. This is why the physicist who knows nothing of philosophy and psychology deserves a good physical kick in the posterior.
There is always that mystical essence that eludes mathematics. Whether it be mind on the local level, or GOD on the cosmic level.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 28, 2021 18:02:02 GMT
I agree with you that nothing cannot be proven because that would require something in order to prove it and if it had something then it would definitely not be nothing therefore you can't tangibly prove a non tangible. However because only something exists and no one can experience nothing that logically means that it is wiser to assume nothing is just a concept then to assume nothing exist given the fact that is all we have is something One can experience nothing by observing an axiom, such as a line, which is accepted purely as is without proof. It has nothing behind it. Under a pure assumption nothing is behind the phenomenon. Dually nothing cannot be a concept given if it is a concept then it is something. Nothing is not even a concept.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 28, 2021 19:29:06 GMT
Oh, I took physicists in general. Surely, it was more healthy those days when physics was comprehended as 'the Natural Philosophy'. Also, mathematically for any x, 0=x+(-x). So, just conceptually we can have 'x+(-x)' instead of '0'. And here we might achieving '0' while there might be some unseen processes, and, hence, the more real would be 'x+(-x)', than '0'. I mean we can rewrite 'x+(-x)' to '0', but it would be an interpretation. To decide which interpretation is correct I think we need a series of tests or something. I don't really know. Better to use real words.
If you have 5 dollars, and I am in debt 5 dollars, does it follow that between us there is no money at all?
Of course not.
The quantitative and qualitative are different in every possible ontological way. This is why the physicist who knows nothing of philosophy and psychology deserves a good physical kick in the posterior.
There is always that mystical essence that eludes mathematics. Whether it be mind on the local level, or GOD on the cosmic level.
This example is definitely persuasive. I can't say I've got a life example to demonstrate '0=x+(-x)'. Or I should say i have just lamely ones. And at the same time by the law of conservation of energy if the temperature became low to 5% the tension has been increased to 5%. I mean "0" can be said to be the control or the balance. Or like increasing the resistance to 1 Ohm the current become lower on 1 Ampere, and there would be 1+0 Volts, or the voltage left unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 28, 2021 21:17:54 GMT
I don't like to interrupt you discussion, but I have had a suggestion for a long time. To begin with, I have been mindful of Parmenides' words: Nothing neither is nor can be conceived. So, are you correct in thinking that you have a concept of Nothing? Now here comes Peirce's theory of "Pragmaticism": a concept can be defined by [said to consist of] its implications on human bearing, or, I would add, "on anything". SO, do you want to experiment to conceive Nothingness?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 29, 2021 0:14:12 GMT
I don't like to interrupt you discussion, but I have had a suggestion for a long time. To begin with, I have been mindful of Parmenides' words: Nothing neither is nor can be conceived. So, are you correct in thinking that you have a concept of Nothing? Now here comes Peirce's theory of "Pragmaticism": a concept can be defined by [said to consist of] its implications on human bearing, or, I would add, "on anything". SO, do you want to experiment to conceive Nothingness? To conceive nothingness is to conceive a state which is void thus impressionable by any further percieved phenomena. In simpler terms to conceive of Nothingness is to conceive of a state which is open to all of being. Existence alone, in contrast to nothing, bears a truth value because it exists. We conceive of Nothingness by the acceptance of being alone considering any being which is accepted "as is" without thought given there is nothing behind the conceived being. To conceive Nothingness is to conceive everything as there is nothing behind everything.
|
|