|
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 MAYA-EL on Apr 29, 2021 1:26:34 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. I agree and yet you still hold to this no-thing and sign characteristics and properties to it and defend it in its existence which looks like a definite oxymoron because technically this no thing cannot be talked about cannot be thought of therefore it pointless to try to verbalize because the only thing that can be verbalized are things And when one says that there's nothing behind the line they're using cultural phrasing and is not fundamentally literal just like when somebody says what are you doing and you say "nothing" just a phrase Society uses
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 29, 2021 17:06:08 GMT
I don't like to interrupt your 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. I can see that by Existence you mean Everything (the Whole, What-is: To Ti Esti, in the very language that Parmenides used) and I agree that unavoidably we use visual experinces when we think of Being/Everything: Being is lik a globe in a void or "empty space", But I also see two big issues: (A) Everything is not given all at once; it is "historical" (progressive), not like the "World" created by a Biblical God. (At this point, one can say that Everything comprises the historical Universe and any god that may be postulated, but we are not being concerned with the constitution of the Universe/Whole.) My issue is: Can anything be added to, or substrated from, What-Is at a certain moment? No -- which implies that a void cannot be generated; nor can a presumed void be filled. So, the hypothesis of a Void behind Being/Everything is inconsequential, as Peirce would say. (B) Is Everything uniform (a Continuum), or does it include voids/"holes"? It is not, if there is "empty space" between two atoms or two stars or two mountains. On the other hand, if there is NOT anything between two individuals, what makes them distinct or at least separate? // Please, keep on thinking.... and Good Health!
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 29, 2021 18:04:10 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?
Without the concept of zero, your computer would not work. Nor would any other process that requires mathematics.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 3, 2021 20:41:35 GMT
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. I agree and yet you still hold to this no-thing and sign characteristics and properties to it and defend it in its existence which looks like a definite oxymoron because technically this no thing cannot be talked about cannot be thought of therefore it pointless to try to verbalize because the only thing that can be verbalized are things And when one says that there's nothing behind the line they're using cultural phrasing and is not fundamentally literal just like when somebody says what are you doing and you say "nothing" just a phrase Society uses Nothing can neither be proven nor disproven and can be discussed as neither proven nor disproven. Nothing can be assumed as an absence of assumption.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 3, 2021 20:45:58 GMT
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. I can see that by Existence you mean Everything (the Whole, What-is: To Ti Esti, in the very language that Parmenides used) and I agree that unavoidably we use visual experinces when we think of Being/Everything: Being is lik a globe in a void or "empty space", But I also see two big issues: (A) Everything is not given all at once; it is "historical" (progressive), not like the "World" created by a Biblical God. (At this point, one can say that Everything comprises the historical Universe and any god that may be postulated, but we are not being concerned with the constitution of the Universe/Whole.) My issue is: Can anything be added to, or substrated from, What-Is at a certain moment? No -- which implies that a void cannot be generated; nor can a presumed void be filled. So, the hypothesis of a Void behind Being/Everything is inconsequential, as Peirce would say. (B) Is Everything uniform (a Continuum), or does it include voids/"holes"? It is not, if there is "empty space" between two atoms or two stars or two mountains. On the other hand, if there is NOT anything between two individuals, what makes them distinct or at least separate? // Please, keep on thinking.... and Good Health! The continual change of one moment to another is a continual adding and subtracting of moments. Void cannot be generated as it would be to generating nothing thus no generation therefore nothing. The Nothingness behind being can be proven in stating only existence exists. Void can be observed through change as change is the absence of totality of being. The absence of totality of being is the void of said being.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 4, 2021 1:00:36 GMT
Wow it took you almost an entire week to come up with "nothing" new to say ...pun intended..
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 4, 2021 2:25:01 GMT
Wow it took you almost an entire week to come up with "nothing" new to say ...pun intended.. Prove to me everything exists strictly as multiplicity.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 4, 2021 15:11:13 GMT
Wow it took you almost an entire week to come up with "nothing" new to say ...pun intended.. Prove to me everything exists strictly as multiplicity. Easy everything is Multiplicity no one can find a no-thing no one can find the beginning of a living thing and things like non-duality are Eastern imaginary ideas based on nothing other than the imagination because the only thing that exists is Multiplicity it's physically right in front of your eyes proving itself to you everyday no concept needed. Now you can somehow perverted and say all that proves all is one but that's literally just your neuroses it has no basis in reality
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 4, 2021 15:44:12 GMT
Easy everything is Multiplicity no one can find a no-thing no one can find the beginning of a living thing and things like non-duality are Eastern imaginary ideas based on nothing other than the imagination because the only thing that exists is Multiplicity it's physically right in front of your eyes proving itself to you everyday no concept needed. Now you can somehow perverted and say all that proves all is one but that's literally just your neuroses it has no basis in reality Speaking of Multiplicity, we have some ancient problems: How can there be MANY, if they are not deparated or differentiated by voids or "vacuoles"? And if there are many things, then they are discontinuous (they are not ONE). wherefore "the Whole" is totally conceptual, a mental assemblage in the same way that we assemble apples and pears. A real whole must be uniform in kind. (To theologians: Go back to the issue of "consubstantiality": If God is a whole, one sustance, it cannot be many persons; if it consists of many persons, it includes nothingness, which the Trinitarians rejected. Anyway, Kal e Anastes e, -- even though the resurrection is debatable.)
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 4, 2021 16:30:36 GMT
Easy everything is Multiplicity no one can find a no-thing no one can find the beginning of a living thing and things like non-duality are Eastern imaginary ideas based on nothing other than the imagination because the only thing that exists is Multiplicity it's physically right in front of your eyes proving itself to you everyday no concept needed. Now you can somehow perverted and say all that proves all is one but that's literally just your neuroses it has no basis in reality Speaking of Multiplicity, we have some ancient problems: How can there be MANY, if they are not deparated or differentiated by voids or "vacuoles"? And if there are many things, then they are discontinuous (they are not ONE). wherefore "the Whole" is totally conceptual, a mental assemblage in the same way that we assemble apples and pears. A real whole must be uniform in kind. (To theologians: Go back to the issue of "consubstantiality": If God is a whole, one sustance, it cannot be many persons; if it consists of many persons, it includes nothingness, which the Trinitarians rejected. Anyway, Kal e Anastes e, -- even though the resurrection is debatable.) God isn't "composed" with uncountable parts. Trinity does not equal to infinity. What's the human difference between "the one" or the other finite number? But the one is the simplest, i.e. the most universal or perfect. Pythagoras chose "the fourth" as such a base number, so did Empedocles.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 4, 2021 17:47:08 GMT
Easy everything is Multiplicity no one can find a no-thing no one can find the beginning of a living thing and things like non-duality are Eastern imaginary ideas based on nothing other than the imagination because the only thing that exists is Multiplicity it's physically right in front of your eyes proving itself to you everyday no concept needed. Now you can somehow perverted and say all that proves all is one but that's literally just your neuroses it has no basis in reality The change of one thing to another necessitates a phenomenon as nothing in itself. On it's own terms it is nothing. This change from one thing to another necessitates a variation of the source where the original source is expressed in a new way. Much in the same manner a line divides to a new line, or a whole number is 1 reflecting upon itself, this variation necessitates a common form repeating itself as perpetually renewed. Even the example of a horse/jet shows common forms repeated (tubes as veins and pipes, portals as windows and eyes, appendages as wings and legs). A common form is perpetually renewed to newer forms through the division of a point as one act of change. This division of the point is the grounding of forms considering all forms are interconnected points. The replication of forms is physically right in front of us. For another example the branching form of "Y" is evident in rivers, streams, lighting, trees, plants, nerves, veins, roads, etc.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 4, 2021 17:53:25 GMT
Easy everything is Multiplicity no one can find a no-thing no one can find the beginning of a living thing and things like non-duality are Eastern imaginary ideas based on nothing other than the imagination because the only thing that exists is Multiplicity it's physically right in front of your eyes proving itself to you everyday no concept needed. Now you can somehow perverted and say all that proves all is one but that's literally just your neuroses it has no basis in reality Speaking of Multiplicity, we have some ancient problems: How can there be MANY, if they are not deparated or differentiated by voids or "vacuoles"? And if there are many things, then they are discontinuous (they are not ONE). wherefore "the Whole" is totally conceptual, a mental assemblage in the same way that we assemble apples and pears. A real whole must be uniform in kind. (To theologians: Go back to the issue of "consubstantiality": If God is a whole, one sustance, it cannot be many persons; if it consists of many persons, it includes nothingness, which the Trinitarians rejected. Anyway, Kal e Anastes e, -- even though the resurrection is debatable.) God can be three persons much in the same manner water can be liquid, solid, or gas. Three states exists as one phenomenon where each phenomenon is how it relates to the surrounding context. Nothingness cannot be included as it is not even a concept...it is nothing.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 4, 2021 17:54:37 GMT
Speaking of Multiplicity, we have some ancient problems: How can there be MANY, if they are not deparated or differentiated by voids or "vacuoles"? And if there are many things, then they are discontinuous (they are not ONE). wherefore "the Whole" is totally conceptual, a mental assemblage in the same way that we assemble apples and pears. A real whole must be uniform in kind. (To theologians: Go back to the issue of "consubstantiality": If God is a whole, one sustance, it cannot be many persons; if it consists of many persons, it includes nothingness, which the Trinitarians rejected. Anyway, Kal e Anastes e, -- even though the resurrection is debatable.) God isn't "composed" with uncountable parts. Trinity does not equal to infinity. What's the human difference between "the one" or the other finite number? But the one is the simplest, i.e. the most universal or perfect. Pythagoras chose "the fourth" as such a base number, so did Empedocles. One as composed of .999999 as 3 times .333333. shows the one as composed of an infinite regress of numbers.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 4, 2021 18:12:29 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. "Sometimes Nothing Is a Pretty Cool Hand": Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke If zero is nothing, how can it occupy a digit? So zero is "aloneness"; the space alone. Cosmologically, space is a substance, even if it is empty.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 4, 2021 20:12:02 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. "Sometimes Nothing Is a Pretty Cool Hand": Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke If zero is nothing, how can it occupy a digit? So zero is "aloneness"; the space alone. Cosmologically, space is a substance, even if it is empty. Space is only observed relative to other limits which are composed of space. Nothingness cancels nothingness as there is only being. These limits which compose being are empty in themselves except through other limits which necessitates being as empty in itself. Space is emptiness. Substance is empty in itself except through further substances. This equation where x is empty in itself except through further x can be broken down further where emptiness is empty except through further emptiness. The repetition of Nothingness is the negation of emptiness through form. An example of this can be seen in the repetition of a 0d dot resulting in the form of the line, circle, or other geometric object. The repetition of nothingness results in the contradiction of being.
|
|