Proof of nonexistence of free will

Absence does not require the past or future presence of what is absent. For example, a unicorn is, probably always was, and probably always will be absent, and it remains absent even without ever becoming present, precisely because absence does not require the past or future presence of what is absent---much on the contrary.

If someone asks: is a unicorn present? We must answer: no---or people will consider us delusional.

Likewise, if something is impossible by definition, like a squared circle, then it is, always was, and always will be absent, pretty much like a unicorn that remained forever nonexistent (with genetic engineers always failing to create it).

If someone asks: is a squared circle present? We must answer: never---or people will consider us delusional.

But what is that which is absent? It is nothing. By which we arrive again at the ambiguity of nothing: it is both whatever is absent (something) and its absence itself (nothing)---and they are the same. This remarkable identity between whatever is absent and its own absence is the only reason why we can---and must---say that it is (whatever is) nothing (absent).

1 Reply

@guigus,

You are not only a moron but a dishonest moron... Laughing

thankfully most people around can see straight through you...
( obviously you can assemble the image of a unicorn and a unicorn exists on that level as a conceptual image...as for squared circles draw one if you don´t mind to enlighten our geometric ignorance... Mr. Green

)

...being your case ad hominens not only apply but they are mandatory !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

obviously you can assemble the image of a unicorn and a unicorn exists on that level as a conceptual image...

So answer me: a unicorn is an image of what? It cannot be an image of nothing, since nothing "does not refer." Neither can it be an image of a unicorn, which does not exist "on that level." Then what is it an image of?

How is a unicorn different from a mermaid?

(A clue: calling me a dishonest moron is not the answer.)

1 Reply

@guigus,

A Unicorn is the image of a horse with a horn in its head haven ´t heard about it yet ? Its a concept image like mickey mousse...what else ? of course it exists !
As for squared circles I am waiting for the blue print so far...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

A Unicorn is the image of a horse with a horn in its head haven ´t heard about it yet ? Its a concept image like mickey mousse...what else ? of course it exists !
As for squared circles I am waiting for the blue print so far...

Let me remember you what the contention was (although I know you are just playing dumb for having run out of arguments): you argued that a unicorn cannot be absent because it is nothing. I am just showing you that you are mistaken, since anything, in order to be absent, must be something (as you agreed above regarding unicorns). As I said before, the simple act of negating something already presupposes that something: the only way of avoiding that is no longer denying anything (which is precisely what you are trying to do---and convince others to do---regarding unicorns and squared circles by holding they cannot be absent, just to save you the embarrassment of recognizing that negation presupposes whatever it negates).

As for a squared circle, here is the blueprint: a circle that has the geometrical attributes of a square.

1 Reply

@guigus,

You are ridiculous...a unicorn exists just as mickey mousse exists...where did I said it doesn 't exist?where did I run out of arguments you fool?
Squared circles unlike unicorns are not geometrically possible...just because you place square by side on circles that alone does not clarify what is it that you are referring to...people can read and think you know..at this point you are just the lautghing stock of this forum... Laughing

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Precisely because its true that negation presuposes what it negates nothingness can only be applied to negate conceiveble stuff...its a temporal and spatial negation of stuff that can exist, and never an absolute negation, once nothingness does not negate their possibility...
...Stuff that is not conceptually possible is not stuff at all so theres nothing to be negated...equally absolute nothingness does not escape the fact that it cannot but negate what there is by which it fails to be an absolute once it asserts it...in such light the common use of the term as an absolute, total negation ends up undoing itself...nothingness is nothing...there is no nothing!

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

You are ridiculous...a unicorn exists just as mickey mousse exists...where did I said it doesn 't exist?where did I run out of arguments you fool?
Squared circles unlike unicorns are not geometrically possible...just because you place square by side on circles that alone does not clarify what is it that you are referring to...people can read and think you know..at this point you are just the lautghing stock of this forum...

Like I said, a squared circle is a circle having the geometrical attributes of a square. It was proved impossible in 1882, as then pi was proven to be a transcendental number.

You are obviously not understanding what I am saying, so consider this: a squared circle is different from a trapezoid one, just like a unicorn is different from a mermaid. Now just ask yourself: how can two things be different from each other without either being possible?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

While I can certainly state there are no chairs in X room or that there are no unicorn paintings in my wall I cannot assert that there is nothing...its plain simple a contradiction in terms ! (Turning no-thing into a thing)
Nothing has therefore a symbolic value not a literal one, it negates what there is what we can think off...it is a partial temporal and spatial negation once the stuff it negates by being possible can eventually manifest itself in the world somewhere along time and space...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Precisely because its true that negation presuposes what it negates nothingness can only be applied to negate conceiveble stuff...

If this inference of yours were true, then you couldn't possibly say that squared circles do not exist, since this would consist in denying an existence that, according to that same inference, could never be denied (don't you think it is time for you to start thinking about your own sayings?).

1 Reply

@guigus,

What was proven impossible was the mix of squares in the shape of circles precisely the reason square circles become an impossibility which in turn means there is no such thing as a squared circle, we don´t even know or grasp what such thing would be or mean...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

What was proven impossible was the mix of squares in the shape of circles precisely the reason square circles become an impossibility which in turn means there is no such thing as a squared circles we don´t even know or grasp what such thing would be or mean...

If you didn't notice yet, we are not discussing the impossibility of squared circles: please focus on our disagreements.

0 Replies

@guigus,

When I say squared circles don´t exist what is meant is that I don´t even know what is it that a squared circle is supposed to be or mean...in fact what I am negating is the mixing of both forms, which are separately possible, up to the point on which I can conceive both forms becoming one...but the final product, the squared circle itself it is not being negated at all, it simply does n´t refer to anything... again we only say that we know nothing on such thing as a squared circle...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

When I say squared circles don´t exist what is meant is that I don´t even know what is it that a squared circles is supposed to be or mean...in fact what I am negating is the mixing of both forms, which are separately possible, up to the point on which I can conceive both forms becoming one...but the final product, the squared circle itself it is not being negated at all, it simply does n´t refer to anything... again we only say that we know nothing on such thing as a squared circle...

Again, consider this: a squared circle is different from a trapezoid one, despite being both impossible---just like a unicorn is different from a mermaid.

Now just ask yourself: how can two things be different from each other if neither is even possible? And please take this question seriously.

1 Reply

@guigus,

You cannot define the difference in between a squared circle and a trapezoid simply because there is no squared circle to make the comparison guigus....what you can assert at best is that the components of a squared circle squares and circles supposedly make you suspect that such object if possible would be different from a trapezoid...and yes I did take your hypothesis as seriously as it deserves to be taken...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

You cannot define the difference in between a squared circle and a trapezoid simply because there is no squared circle to make the comparison guigus....what you can assert at best is that the components of a squared circle squares and circles supposedly make you suspect that such object if possible would be different from a trapezoid...and yes I did take your hypothesis as seriously as it deserves to be taken...

You may have taken my words as much seriously as you could, but certainly not as much seriously as they deserve.

Of course there are both a squared circle and a trapezoid one, simply because we are denying their existence. Let me explain this to you so perhaps you finally understand it.

You are saying that a squared circle simply does not exist, so it cannot be any different from a trapezoid circle, or even be absent. Well, if you were correct, then denying a squared circle as an existence would rather consist in denying it as a nonexistence, and so in asserting it as an existence. In order for us to deny a squared circle as an existence it must be that existence, because it is all we are denying: if it were a nonexistence, then we could only deny that same nonexistence, by which a squared circle would rather exist.

Therefore, no matter how many times you deny the existence of squared circles, your every act of denial contradicts you (which explains your anger): the best proof that squared circles exist is your being able to deny their existence.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Can you read that squared circles or any "bghftyxyz" are like the same...that is I don' t know what you are talking about when you use or employ the term, its meaningless...its not to much to ask to clarify what the hack are squared circles guigus? Be honest for once and drop the nonsense...I am certain by now you must know its nonsense...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Can you read that squared circles or any "bghftyxyz" are like the same...that is I don' t know what you are talking about when you use or employ the term, its meaningless...its not to much to ask to clarify what the hack are squared circles guigus? Be honest for once and drop the nonsense...I am certain by now you must know its nonsense...

Please read again my previous post, carefully, until you realize the problem.

1 Reply

@guigus,

To state that something does not exist in the sense of absent as I so clearly explain reports a partial spatial temporal absence...not the case of squared circles...you might just as well have shown me any given number of brought together characters and state that they refer...unless you can show me to what they refer they are just random static, empty words, noise!!!

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

To state that something does not exist as I so clearly explain reports a partial spatial temporal absence...not the case of squared circles...you might just as well have swon me any given number of brought together characters and state that they refer...unless you can show me to what they refer they are just random static, empty words, noise!!!

You keep denying that squared circles (or any nonexistent things) exist without ever noticing that your very denial asserts their existence (this is a general feature of negation, which does not depend on what you are denying): your only answer to that contradiction is denying their existence again, and again, and again, indefinitely.

You can only deny that squared circles exist by assuming they exist, otherwise you would be denying their nonexistence, which would result in asserting their existence instead. So first things first: before trying to understand what a squared circle is (which you are obviously not doing properly), consider instead what I just showed you, carefully.

1 Reply

Proof of nonexistence of free will

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know