|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 31, 2021 20:39:55 GMT
1. Absolute void cannot be proven as to prove an absolute void is to prove nothing.
2. Relative void can be proven as the absence of one phenomenon in another through the differentiation of phenomena.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 1, 2021 12:31:40 GMT
I agree. It's totally unprovable that there's an absolute void (Surely if we understand the void as the complete and incomplete at the same time nothingness.)
Have we to claim that there is no real void, but the unreal or a certain void (a kinda void), because a void in one context doesn't deny that there might be non-void in another one?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 1, 2021 16:19:53 GMT
I agree. It's totally unprovable that there's an absolute void (Surely if we understand the void as the complete and incomplete at the same time nothingness.) Have we to claim that there is no real void, but the unreal or a certain void (a kinda void), because a void in one context doesn't deny that there might be non-void in another one? Only relative void can be proven given the absence of one phenomenon in relationship to another can be proven. |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 1, 2021 17:52:52 GMT
I agree. It's totally unprovable that there's an absolute void (Surely if we understand the void as the complete and incomplete at the same time nothingness.) Have we to claim that there is no real void, but the unreal or a certain void (a kinda void), because a void in one context doesn't deny that there might be non-void in another one? Space is a substance, so "empty space" is a contradiction in terms (what the Diploma Dumbos mistakenly think "oxymoron" means). It was created at the Big Bang, which was actually a volcanic eruption, a reverse Black Hole, from another universe. The hyperworld substance created our space, matter, energy, and light. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 1, 2021 19:10:12 GMT
I agree. It's totally unprovable that there's an absolute void (Surely if we understand the void as the complete and incomplete at the same time nothingness.) Have we to claim that there is no real void, but the unreal or a certain void (a kinda void), because a void in one context doesn't deny that there might be non-void in another one? Space is a substance, so "empty space" is a contradiction in terms (what the Diploma Dumbos mistakenly think "oxymoron" means). It was created at the Big Bang, which was actually a volcanic eruption, a reverse Black Hole, from another universe. The hyperworld substance created our space, matter, energy, and light. That was a thought I tried to say to x 9. Moreover, people can conceive chaos, because – what is it if not a kind of the order? We can make different orders. Some of orders seem more organized, than the rest. Nevertheless, the well-organazied orders aren't out of being categorised as the worse-organized. Why? – We don't have the universal catalogue or classifications to be certain that only our way is the one and the only. Conceiving chaos all what can we do is to imagine another badly organized order. I guess our problems of attempts to conceive the emptiness is tied up with the problem of the negative facts. Is this a fact: "The Sun isn't squared". It seems to be, but... It's like that "there is the emptiness of the fact that the Sun isn't squared (is present in our galaxy)" is true. Does anybody believe it? I don't think the negative facts is a simple to solve thing, and at the same time I guess the confusion between the emptiness concepts and the negative facts may have one source: wrong language usage. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 1, 2021 19:43:46 GMT
I agree. It's totally unprovable that there's an absolute void (Surely if we understand the void as the complete and incomplete at the same time nothingness.) Have we to claim that there is no real void, but the unreal or a certain void (a kinda void), because a void in one context doesn't deny that there might be non-void in another one? Space is a substance, so "empty space" is a contradiction in terms (what the Diploma Dumbos mistakenly think "oxymoron" means). It was created at the Big Bang, which was actually a volcanic eruption, a reverse Black Hole, from another universe. The hyperworld substance created our space, matter, energy, and light. Empty space is an absence of forms. Void is relative. The question is then "what is a substance?". Some substances lack other substances thus are void of said substances. The big bang would require space through it in which too move thus space would be prior to it. Other big bangs would act as the limits allowing space between them in which to move. This would require multiple points in which the universe(s) began. These multiple points would have to occur from a single source thus relegating their origins again to a single big bang in which everything occurs. This is a paradox. At best substance occurs through substance as space through space where what is formless (ie void) self negates into form. In the beginning was formlessness and this formlessness resulted in form with these relative forms, ie relating forms, resulting in space. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 1, 2021 20:12:43 GMT
All Is Lava Space is a substance, so "empty space" is a contradiction in terms (what the Diploma Dumbos mistakenly think "oxymoron" means). It was created at the Big Bang, which was actually a volcanic eruption, a reverse Black Hole, from another universe. The hyperworld substance created our space, matter, energy, and light. Empty space is an absence of forms. Void is relative. The question is then "what is a substance?". Some substances lack other substances thus are void of said substances. The big bang would require space through it in which too move thus space would be prior to it. Other big bangs would act as the limits allowing space between them in which to move. This would require multiple points in which the universe(s) began. These multiple points would have to occur from a single source thus relegating their origins again to a single big bang in which everything occurs. This is a paradox. At best substance occurs through substance as space through space where what is formless (ie void) self negates into form. In the beginning was formlessness and this formlessness resulted in form with these relative forms, ie relating forms, resulting in space. Aristotle defined the substance as something that cannot said anything about anything else, while we can said almost everything about it predicting it almost everything. Briefly, the substance is something, it is not what is Nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 1, 2021 20:15:42 GMT
Empty space is an absence of forms. Void is relative. The question is then "what is a substance?". Some substances lack other substances thus are void of said substances. The big bang would require space through it in which too move thus space would be prior to it. Other big bangs would act as the limits allowing space between them in which to move. This would require multiple points in which the universe(s) began. These multiple points would have to occur from a single source thus relegating their origins again to a single big bang in which everything occurs. This is a paradox. At best substance occurs through substance as space through space where what is formless (ie void) self negates into form. In the beginning was formlessness and this formlessness resulted in form with these relative forms, ie relating forms, resulting in space. Aristotle defined the substance as something that cannot said anything about anything else, while we can said almost everything about it predicting it almost everything. Briefly, the substance is something, it is not what is Nothing. If substance is that which nothing else can be said, and there are multiple substances then substance is reducible to other substances in a revolving loop. At best substance is a form. Form Is What Determines Substance. Void is the absence of form, hence substance. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 2, 2021 5:52:44 GMT
Aristotle defined the substance as something that cannot said anything about anything else, while we can said almost everything about it predicting it almost everything. Briefly, the substance is something, it is not what is Nothing. If substance is that which nothing else can be said, and there are multiple substances then substance is reducible to other substances in a revolving loop. At best substance is a form. Form Is What Determines Substance. Void is the absence of form, hence substance. I apologize some of my phrases are terrible (I can't say each time I pay enough attention to eliminate all the mistakes). Such definitions are harder to explain for me, because of the most abstract usage of language + need of skills and tricks to do it carefully. I wanted to say that substance is something that "x" in logic; "x" as a subject. Luckily the logic helps me to express it: 1) There is an X s.t. for all P, X is P. 2) There is no X s.t. for any P, P is X. 3) Then here "X" is substance. I think it was exactly what Aristotle said, at least his "Analytics, The 1st" refers to such views. |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 2, 2021 16:01:16 GMT
All Is Lava Space is a substance, so "empty space" is a contradiction in terms (what the Diploma Dumbos mistakenly think "oxymoron" means). It was created at the Big Bang, which was actually a volcanic eruption, a reverse Black Hole, from another universe. The hyperworld substance created our space, matter, energy, and light. That was a thought I tried to say to x 9. Moreover, people can conceive chaos, because – what is it if not a kind of the order? We can make different orders. Some of orders seem more organized, than the rest. Nevertheless, the well-organazied orders aren't out of being categorised as the worse-organized. Why? – We don't have the universal catalogue or classifications to be certain that only our way is the one and the only. Conceiving chaos all what can we do is to imagine another badly organized order. I guess our problems of attempts to conceive the emptiness is tied up with the problem of the negative facts. Is this a fact: "The Sun isn't squared". It seems to be, but... It's like that "there is the emptiness of the fact that the Sun isn't squared (is present in our galaxy)" is true. Does anybody believe it? I don't think the negative facts is a simple to solve thing, and at the same time I guess the confusion between the emptiness concepts and the negative facts may have one source: wrong language usage. As Einstein said about the Nazi Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, "God does not play dice." The only rational explanation for Indeterminacy is that an outside universe is controlling the apparent randomness. Every atom here is partially embedded in the outside universe, where it originated before it came into our space. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 2, 2021 16:06:13 GMT
That was a thought I tried to say to x 9. Moreover, people can conceive chaos, because – what is it if not a kind of the order? We can make different orders. Some of orders seem more organized, than the rest. Nevertheless, the well-organazied orders aren't out of being categorised as the worse-organized. Why? – We don't have the universal catalogue or classifications to be certain that only our way is the one and the only. Conceiving chaos all what can we do is to imagine another badly organized order. I guess our problems of attempts to conceive the emptiness is tied up with the problem of the negative facts. Is this a fact: "The Sun isn't squared". It seems to be, but... It's like that "there is the emptiness of the fact that the Sun isn't squared (is present in our galaxy)" is true. Does anybody believe it? I don't think the negative facts is a simple to solve thing, and at the same time I guess the confusion between the emptiness concepts and the negative facts may have one source: wrong language usage. As Einstein said about the Nazi Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, "God does not play dice." The only rational explanation for Indeterminacy is that an outside universe is controlling the apparent randomness. Every atom here is partially embedded in the outside universe, where it originated before it came into our space. I don't think that anyone can rationally doubt in determination unless that person is using logic. While logic & determination doesn't seem to be cooperate, its semantic side is tied with it, and Quine explained it doubting analytic/synthetic distinction in the logical positivism. Only turning off logic we might (might!) guess that A and B isn't tied up with cause/reason relationship, but as soon as we step into the territory of ratio all of such cloudy and mesh indetermination vanishes. |
|
