Proof of nonexistence of free will

@guigus,

Loooool that does it...so now I must believe that X exists....well? What what? Oh guigus...I am not beating you up no more...you deserve my best wishes really!
Be well!

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Loooool that does it...so now I must believe that X exists....well? What what? Oh guigus...I am not beating you up no more...you deserve my best wishes really!
Be well!

As I told you, instead of trying to figure out how something nonexistent can exist---which you are not doing properly---try first to understand negation. Which of course you didn't.

You keep repeating the same mistake, over and over again: a squared circle does not exist, it is an impossible thing (as already proved by mathematicians), and it is because of this that it must somehow exist, as its nonexistence is the negation of its existence, which depends on that existence for not ending up negating that squared circle's nonexistence, then asserting its existence. However, the way a squared circle exists is obviously by no means the same way a square and a circle exist---I can address that after you consider my reasoning about negation.

Even if my result seems absurd, you must still examine my reasoning to find its flaw, which, again, you didn't (are you that kind of guy that has all the answers without any thinking?).

1 Reply

@guigus,

Squaring the circle ? It should say squaring the cylinder!

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Impossibility is the negation of possibility, nonexistence is the negation of existence, and absence is the negation of presence: all of them are the negation of a being, which is its nothingness. And for negating any being we depend on its affirmation, otherwise we end up negating its negation, and the negation of a negation is an affirmation: if a negated being is already not possible, or already nonexistent, or already not present, then its negation is the negation of its negation, hence its affirmation. That's why all negation is an implicit affirmation of whatever it negates.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

That's not what I am trying to do, please follow the discussion. My point is rather this:

For negating any being we depend on its affirmation, otherwise we end up negating its negation, and the negation of a negation is an affirmation: if a negated being is already not possible, or already nonexistent, or already not present, then its negation is the negation of its negation, hence its affirmation. That's why all negation is an implicit affirmation of whatever it negates.

By which we have a contradiction: despite knowing that a squared circle is impossible, it must somehow be possible, because its impossibility is the negation of its possibility.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

despite knowing that a squared circle is impossible, it must somehow be possible, because its impossibility is the negation of its possibility.

Of course a squared circle is possible and religious people proved that a long time ago!

All you need is enough faith, "anything you can think up can become real!

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
despite knowing that a squared circle is impossible, it must somehow be possible, because its impossibility is the negation of its possibility.

Of course a squared circle is possible and religious people proved that a long time ago!

All you need is enough faith, "anything you can think up can become real!

Anything is possible, indeed, but not how you think---or religious people think, for that matter. Let us dig a little more into that reasoning.

If whatever we negate is not something, then we have nothing to negate, by which our negation of that something becomes its affirmation. However, if we pay enough attention to this result (instead of ignoring it), we will notice that:

When whatever we negate is already nothing, we are negating its nothingness. However, there is only one nothingness, which is the negation of being. So what our negation of a squared circle implicitly asserts is not the particular existence of a squared circle, but rather the general existence of absolute nothingness as a being---in the figure of a squared circle.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Do I understand you correctly? Are you making the claim that the general existence of absolute nothingness is a being?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Do I understand you correctly? Are you making the claim that the general existence of absolute nothingness is a being?

Absolute being and absolute nothingness are the same, as I showed many times in this thread, in many different ways (I suggest you revisit the thread backwards, because it is already very big)---this is just another way of arriving at that same conclusion. And I am not "claiming" this, I am concluding it based on a reasoning, so please examine that reasoning: this is not simply a duel of who yells their claims (or laughs) more loudly (or at least it shouldn't be).

1 Reply

@guigus,

I have not been following this thread so I missed allot of what has been said and sense you put it kindly and you think that there is value in knowing this I will revisit what you are saying and see if I also can find value in this understanding!

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

I have not been following this thread so I missed allot of what has been said and sense you put it kindly and you think that there is value in knowing this I will revisit what you are saying and see if I also can find value in this understanding!

Let me give you just one advise: don't fall into the trap of trying to reduce either nothingness to being or being to nothingness: their identity does not eliminate either one of them, but rather creates a larger, contradiction-embracing view of the world.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Is this how you see it? I find this rather interesting!

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Is this how you see it? I find this rather interesting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrMVous0Ac&feature=related

Very good video. I would even make his words mine when he say: "You dont't have first something then nothing or first nothing then something."

The video correctly advances the idea of "some kind of unity" between being and nothingness. However, that unity must be philosophically sound: it is not enough to vaguely advance it.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Allen watts does seem to have a sound philosophical understanding! I for some reason learn quicker from videos, maybe it is because I have a reading comprehension problem! Smile

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

This video is saying exactly what I have been saying upon nothingness, as expected guigus did not understood it properly...you see the only application we have for nothingness which is emptiness goes attached to space and time not true nothingness which of course it can´t be...therefore the only practical meaning on nothingness addresses the absence of things that are possible like this cigar or that chair that may or may not be here...which in turn excludes non possible non conceivable things like squared circles which are meaningless once the word alone does not point to anything...
..."Squared circles" are not affirmed nor negated one simply does n´t know what the hack the expression is talking about...what is negated in fact is that to such expression there is anything that corresponds...the expression which exists in English,"squared circles" does not correspond to any meaningful thing that we can conceive off...guigus of course confused the word with the thing, but that is no surprise coming from someone who states what he states...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

This problem further develops into a psychological problem upon the working of human mind which originates the apparent paradox...that is when we have an expression that fails to correspond to anything we falsely contrast it with a temporal and spatial void when in fact there is nothing to contrast with...that is we say that a supposed something is absent when truthfully there is no such something nor to be absent or present in the first place...nothingness it is so self contradictory as a concept that we immediately feel the compulsory need to make it something which we then call the void...but if we are capable of some reasoning we easily can understand that such void is far from being nothingness once it corresponds to space and time...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Seems like a well thought out reply to me! Idea

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

For those worried about our future:

http://goo.gl/1pUUp

That was a interesting video it reminded me of this one! I wonder if he was a student of Albert Bartlett.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

guigus wrote:

For those worried about our future:

http://goo.gl/1pUUp

That was a interesting video it reminded me of this one! I wonder if he was a student of Albert Bartlett.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

He explicitly mentions him. Just click on the following link:

http://goo.gl/srqHh

1 Reply

@guigus,

My grandfather was the one to first tell me the following King's mathematician story when I was an adolescent:

http://goo.gl/LbphK

0 Replies

Proof of nonexistence of free will

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know