DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

I don't recall ever being asked that question. Why do you asume that I cannot face it, or were you generalising?

Please quote my original post for me to know what you are referring to.

mark noble wrote:

Are you asking me that question?

I will answer anyway: Does zero exist?

The question of this thread is: does nothing exist?

mark noble wrote:

As for death - Define it? I define it as the cessation of life. Now define 'Life'? I define this as having the ability to absorb, expand and discharge - This covers all physical forms. (There are no non-physical forms)

Let us stick to nothing, which is already enough trouble.

mark noble wrote:

Origin of universe? It has always been, ergo has no origin.

Even if you restrict your imaginings to the solitary BB theory, all material contained in your singularity prior to the event must be equal to the material that is now present, ergo has always been.

Even if you imagine further and settle on an infinite quantity of multiverses, you will realise that each and every one of those are merely parts of the whole (The Omniverse) - A boundless expanse of material (life/energy) occupying ALL locations.

And each must infinitely alter shape and form (every shape and form). And each must (as infinity demands) ultimately self-replicate.

Mark...

As I said, let us stick with the question of this thread.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

Sorry, but all this is irrelevant to me:

Yes, what's of relevance to you is clearly limited to what comes out of your head.

Quote:

this is a place for people to discuss philosophy,

I wouldn't know that from looking at your posts. Looking at them I get the impression that this is a place for people to pour random fantasies they happen to dream up.

Quote:

so I'm still waiting for an answer to my carefully explained reasoning.

You have gone on at great length, but so far you have done no reasoning and even less explaining. Your mastery of intelligence is apparently such that your conclusions clearly cannot be trusted. They are simply irrelevant to reality.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Sorry, but all this is irrelevant to me:

Yes, what's of relevance to you is clearly limited to what comes out of your head.

Quote:
this is a place for people to discuss philosophy,

I wouldn't know that from looking at your posts. Looking at them I get the impression that this is a place for people to pour random fantasies they happen to dream up.

Quote:
so I'm still waiting for an answer to my carefully explained reasoning.

You have gone on at great length, but so far you have done no reasoning and even less explaining. Your mastery of intelligence is apparently such that your conclusions clearly cannot be trusted. They are simply irrelevant to reality.

Let us go in parts. Do you agree that nothing is not any and every being?

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Sorry, but all this is irrelevant to me:

Yes, what's of relevance to you is clearly limited to what comes out of your head.

If this were true, then I wouldn't bother answering to you, don't you agree? Once again, you are not reasoning logically.

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
this is a place for people to discuss philosophy,

I wouldn't know that from looking at your posts. Looking at them I get the impression that this is a place for people to pour random fantasies they happen to dream up.

Logic is known for destroying first impressions...

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
so I'm still waiting for an answer to my carefully explained reasoning.

You have gone on at great length, but so far you have done no reasoning and even less explaining. Your mastery of intelligence is apparently such that your conclusions clearly cannot be trusted. They are simply irrelevant to reality.

Sorry, but as far as you are incapable of falsifying what I said -- or even specifically referring to it -- it is what you say that becomes irrelevant to the reality of this discussion. So, once again: do you agree that nothing is not any and every being?

1 Reply

@guigus,

And now you are back to the "no you" strategy, I see.

I say that there is no reasoning in "#¤%# * 0 =1

to which you reply

"there is no reason in your reasoning".

Im just gonna pretend you dont exist.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

And now you are back to the "no you" strategy, I see.

I say that there is no reasoning in "#¤%# * 0 =1

to which you reply

"there is no reason in your reasoning".

Im just gonna pretend you dont exist.

You can do what you want, and it certainly doesn't include answering my simple question:

Code:Do you agree that nothing is not any and every being?

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

Do you agree that nothing is not any and every being?

No. Nothing is simply nothing. It is a word constructed out of two parts. "Thing", which is easy enough to grasp, and "no" which, when put in front of "thing", means that said "thing" is not represented. In other words, nothing is merely a negative representation of thing. It is not an entity of itself. It is not the same as 1, and it cannot, under any circumstance be multiplied by zero to produce the outcome 1.

Look at that again. That is reasoning and explanation. You can tell by the fact that it makes sense. Making sense is a big part of philosophy, so why don't you try it?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Do you agree that nothing is not any and every being?

No. Nothing is simply nothing. It is a word constructed out of two parts. "Thing", which is easy enough to grasp, and "no" which, when put in front of "thing", means that said "thing" is not represented. In other words, nothing is merely a negative representation of thing. It is not an entity of itself. It is not the same as 1, and it cannot, under any circumstance be multiplied by zero to produce the outcome 1.

Look at that again.

Look and think or just look?

Cyracuz wrote:

That is reasoning and explanation.

Sorry, that's a mere assertion, repeated many times, along with a refusal to think about it.

Cyracuz wrote:

You can tell by the fact that it makes sense. Making sense is a big part of philosophy, so why don't you try it?

Fair enough, so let us try to make sense of what you are saying.

Your belief is that the word "nothing" is unambiguous, by meaning simply "no thing." But if you replace "nothing" by "no thing" in the sentence "nothing is unambiguous," then you get:

Code:No thing is unambiguous.

Which means everything is ambiguous, including the word "nothing." Now that's reasoning.

1 Reply

@guigus,

If you say "Nothing is unambiguous", it would follow that "everything is ambiguous".
But the reasoning you used to arrive at the conclusion that everything is ambiguous cannot be used to refute the claim that supports this reasoning.

Your thinking goes along these lines:

Nothing is unambiguous
so
Everything is ambiguous
therefore
Nothing is ambiguous, since nothing is something. You now have two contradicting statements that both have to be true for one of them to be so....

Clearly a false and ridiculous attempt at logic.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

If you say "Nothing is unambiguous", it would follow that "everything is ambiguous".
But the reasoning you used to arrive at the conclusion that everything is ambiguous cannot be used to refute the claim that supports this reasoning.

Your thinking goes along these lines:

Nothing is unambiguous
so
Everything is ambiguous
therefore
Nothing is ambiguous, since nothing is something. You now have two contradicting statements that both have to be true for one of them to be so....

Clearly a false and ridiculous attempt at logic.

See? You can think after all, you were just refusing to -- this "ridiculous" attempt at logic is called thinking. Now just ask yourself: where is the flaw in my own reasoning? And you will find none.

As I said before, the fact that a reasoning leads you to a contradiction is not enough to invalidate it, otherwise paradoxes like the set of all sets not containing themselves would have been discarded when first encountered, simply for leading to a contradiction.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

See? You can think after all, you were just refusing to -- this "ridiculous" attempt at logic is called thinking.

I just demostrated to you that you are essentially full of **** in the entire context of this thread, and you presume to be condescending towards me?

Thing is that while all logic may be thinking, all thinking is by no means logic.

Quote:

Now just ask yourself: where is the flaw in my own reasoning?

I just demonstrated that clearly. You simply cannot use one statement to prove another, and then use that other statement to disprove the first.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
See? You can think after all, you were just refusing to -- this "ridiculous" attempt at logic is called thinking.

I just demostrated to you that you are essentially full of **** in the entire context of this thread, and you presume to be condescending towards me?

Thing is that while all logic may be thinking, all thinking is by no means logic.

The reasoning was yours this time, and since you are incapable of falsifying it, this makes you, according to your own words, "full of ****," which is not a very good opinion for one to have about oneself, don't you think?

Just repeating: the fact that a reasoning leads you to a contradiction is not enough to invalidate it, otherwise paradoxes like the set of all sets not containing themselves would have been discarded when first encountered, simply for leading to a contradiction.

The honest, logical attitude is trying to understand how and why that contradiction arises, hopefully finding a flaw in the reasoning leading to it. You are just refusing the reasoning altogether, simply because it leads to a contradiction, which is neither honest nor logical.

1 Reply

@guigus,

You simply cannot use one statement to prove another, and then use that other statement to disprove the first.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

You simply cannot use one statement to prove another, and then use that other statement to disprove the first.

Why not? Because you, the master of the universe, are saying so? Russell's paradox does exactly this. Are you saying Russell was full of ****? The main rule of logic is this: whatever you say, you must prove it.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

The main rule of logic is: whatever you say, you must prove.

Well, since you have repeatedly failed to account for how nothing is actually something that pretty much ends the discussion.

I am not deeply familiar with russels paradox, but I am fairly certain that it has little to do with arguments such as

Nothing is unambiguous (clear)
so
everything is ambiguous (unclear)
therefore
nothing is ambiguous. (unclear)

You have just stated that since nothing is clear (meaning there isn't anything that is clear), everything must be unclear. And if everything is unclear, then surely nothing must also be unclear... How does that make sense?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Don't confuse being ambiguous with being unclear: for nothing to be ambiguous is for it to mean both something and nothing, which is perfectly clear, despite being heretical to you. Of course, at some level, or eventually, the two things are the same, since, at some level, or eventually, everything is everything else, which doesn't mean this happens at all levels, or all the time. For example, there is a level in which being and nothingness are the same, but in this level we cannot, for example, perform any mathematical operations.

In the end, you are just afraid about where logic will lead you, since they told you it would lead you to madness.

Take Russell's paradox: like many other paradoxes, it was never solved. Rather, they built different axiomatic systems to circumvent it, none of which was ever proven. The paradox stays there, as an eternal source of "concern." And why? Because it arises not from someone's belief, but from logical reasoning.

1 Reply

@guigus,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambiguous

Something cannot be both ambiguous and unambiguous at the same time, which is what you are trying to convince people of here. But I think I'm the only one still bothering with your delusions, and I really cannot say why I do.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Hi Guigus!

When I remember how to quote you, I will.

And all this material is relevant to your original quote - Why else would I have typed it?

Going to find it now.

Mark...

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

If you cannot face the question of whether zero is the same as nothing or not, then how could you successfully face the questions of death or the origin of the universe? Just asking.

Here it is Smile

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambiguous

Something cannot be both ambiguous and unambiguous at the same time, which is what you are trying to convince people of here. But I think I'm the only one still bothering with your delusions, and I really cannot say why I do.

I didn't say unambiguous, I said clear:

guigus wrote:

Don't confuse being ambiguous with being unclear: for nothing to be ambiguous is for it to mean both something and nothing, which is perfectly clear, despite being heretical to you.

The ambiguity of something is itself something perfectly clear, that's what I said. Even though something can, yes, be both ambiguous and unambiguous at the same time, but that one I will only discuss with you when you at least accept that:

Code:Nothing is not any and every thing.

0 Replies

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know