DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@guigus,

Im just gonna do a 360 on you and walk the other way

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Im just gonna do a 360 on you and walk the other way

You'll have to get a court decision to force me go anywhere.

Our conclusions must fit our arguments, not the other way around. So, if my reasoning leads me to conclude that "any being is any other being," then I must either find something wrong in that reasoning or accept its conclusion:

Code:

Nothing is not each being.

Not each being is not each being.

Any being is any other being.

1 Reply

@guigus,

lol

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

lol

Don't you have any better things to laugh of? (I was hoping you would keep your promise of doing a 360 on me... not so lucky.)

1 Reply

So the answer to the question opening this thread is: nothing both exists and does not exist: being is both all being and each being, and since each being is not all being, being is not being. Hence, being and nothingness are the same, while still being different. Our question then becomes no longer if nothing exists, but how can it both exist and not exist, or how can being and nothingness coexist in the being of nothing.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

So the answer to the question opening this thread is: nothing both exists and does not exist: being is both all being and each being, and since each being is not all being, being is not being. Hence, being and nothingness are the same, while still being different. Our question then becomes no longer if nothing exists, but how can it both exist and not exist, or how can being and nothingness coexist in the being of nothing.

ahhhhhh.............................. nothing does not exist

no if ands or buts

2 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

guigus wrote:

So the answer to the question opening this thread is: nothing both exists and does not exist: being is both all being and each being, and since each being is not all being, being is not being. Hence, being and nothingness are the same, while still being different. Our question then becomes no longer if nothing exists, but how can it both exist and not exist, or how can being and nothingness coexist in the being of nothing.

ahhhhhh.............................. nothing does not exist

no if ands or buts

I already know you don't like my conclusion. I just want to know if you can falsify the reasoning leading to it. Otherwise, whatever you say is just an opinion, like you favorite football team.

You, north, as well as Cyracuz, both believe to have the power to decide what is true without reasoning, probably by means of divine revelation. Are you both priests? Where are the arguments? Where is the thinking?

1 Reply

Remember set theory? Here is another of many arguments I have already presented here just to see them become inaudible under the noise of your insults:

The empty set has a cardinality of zero, and no element, so zero as the cardinality of the empty set is the same as nothing as its content.

The set containing only the number zero does not have nothing as its content, so zero as the only element of a set is different from nothing as its content.

Conclusion: according to set theory, zero is both different from (as an element) and identical to (as a cardinality) nothing -- which shows the ambiguity of both nothing and zero.

Can you answer to this? Or will I receive another idiotic answer lacking a single inference?

0 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

So the answer to the question opening this thread is: nothing both exists and does not exist:

yes and no

practibly " nothing " exists , such as nothing in the fridge or nothing in my account

but nothing , as far as energy/matter is concerned, is simply not possible to manifest

nothing has the opposite qualities of something

2 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

Quote:
So the answer to the question opening this thread is: nothing both exists and does not exist:

yes and no

practibly " nothing " exists , such as nothing in the fridge or nothing in my account

but nothing , as far as energy/matter is concerned, is simply not possible to manifest

Nothing is the same as being: all manifestation is a manifestation of nothing.

north wrote:

nothing has the opposite qualities of something

This is because it is everything.

The real problem is not whether nothing exists, but how.

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

nothing has the opposite qualities of something

You are fundamentally agreeing with me, you just didn't go all the way to the root of this issue, which is that being is all there is, hence is each particular manifestation of itself (each being). However, each particular manifestation of being is neither each one of its other, particular manifestations (each other being), nor the totality of its manifestations (all being). By which being negates itself, that is, negates being, hence becomes nothing.

The real problem is the form or structure of this negation.

0 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

I was hoping you would keep your promise of doing a 360 on me... not so lucky

I was trying to flip the switch on you, but you are too dense to notice, unfortunately.

If I did a 360 on you I would be back facing you again. 360 is a full circle. And I have finally understood what you are doing here. Tragic comedy in the finest traditions. Lol! Keep it coming.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
I was hoping you would keep your promise of doing a 360 on me... not so lucky

I was trying to flip the switch on you, but you are too dense to notice, unfortunately.

If I did a 360 on you I would be back facing you again. 360 is a full circle. And I have finally understood what you are doing here. Tragic comedy in the finest traditions. Lol! Keep it coming.

I'm glad you noticed that 360 degrees is a full circle, anyway.

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

guigus wrote:

So the answer to the question opening this thread is: nothing both exists and does not exist: being is both all being and each being, and since each being is not all being, being is not being. Hence, being and nothingness are the same, while still being different. Our question then becomes no longer if nothing exists, but how can it both exist and not exist, or how can being and nothingness coexist in the being of nothing.

ahhhhhh.............................. nothing does not exist

no if ands or buts

So everything exists, including Santa Claus, right? But...

I was trying to avoid answering to your idiotic no-argument posts, as this diverges attention from my still unanswered arguments. But since you keep ignoring me, I have no other choice than to focus on things like the above, while hoping someday you people will start thinking at least about what you have just said yourselves...

0 Replies

But since hope dies hard...

guigus wrote:

1. The empty set has a cardinality of zero, and no element, so zero as the cardinality of the empty set is the same as nothing as its content.

2. The set containing only the number zero does not have nothing as its content, so zero as the only element of a set is different from nothing as its content.

Conclusion: according to set theory, zero is both different from (as an element) and identical to (as a cardinality) nothing -- which shows the ambiguity of both nothing and zero.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
I was hoping you would keep your promise of doing a 360 on me... not so lucky

I was trying to flip the switch on you, but you are too dense to notice, unfortunately.

If I did a 360 on you I would be back facing you again. 360 is a full circle. And I have finally understood what you are doing here. Tragic comedy in the finest traditions. Lol! Keep it coming.

Since your concept of "nothing" has only half of its full meaning, it seemed only natural that your circle had only half of its full circumference -- it is a form of consistency, anyway...

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

Since your concept of "nothing" has only half of its full meaning, it seemed only natural that your circle had only half of its full circumference -- it is a form of consistency, anyway...

Row row row yer boat, gently down the stream....

Here's you:
"Nothing is something! Oh my Me, that means that wherever there is nothing there is actually much more than anywhere else, which means that nothing is more real than something! Oh Me, I can't believe how smart I am! Now let me spread my new discoveries to all who are inferior to me, and therefore cannot realize this for themselves. This is proof that I am the smartest, most intelligent person in all of humanity through all of time! Praise be to Me!!!!"

That is effectively all you have been saying the whole time. Got any more good jokes?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Since your concept of "nothing" has only half of its full meaning, it seemed only natural that your circle had only half of its full circumference -- it is a form of consistency, anyway...

Row row row yer boat, gently down the stream....

Here's you:
"Nothing is something!

Nothing is both something and nothing, as I already showed you starting from the concepts of both nothing and being -- and I am still waiting for you to falsify at least one of those demonstrations.

Cyracuz wrote:

Oh my Me, that means that wherever there is nothing there is actually much more than anywhere else, which means that nothing is more real than something!

You are only capable of unilateral thinking, aren't you? Being is the same as nothing, as also different from it. Which follows from the concepts of both being and nothingness, as I already showed you many, many times, without you being capable of showing me wrong. What you are saying, that nothing is "more real" than being, corresponds to just one moment of the dialectic of being: there are other moments, including the one in which nothing is just not each being, which is your favorite. I have no problem recognizing and accepting all those moments, despite unfortunately the same not applying to you: in order to focus on one of them you forcibly discard all the others.

Cyracuz wrote:

Oh Me, I can't believe how smart I am!

Of course I believe on how smart I am. It is you that do not -- you are just a bit confuse about who is who.

Cyracuz wrote:

Now let me spread my new discoveries to all who are inferior to me, and therefore cannot realize this for themselves.

Unfortunately, I didn't even begin to tell you my discoveries. What I have told you so far is old news -- just read Hegel -- so I am not just smarter than you, but also more knowledgeable.

Cyracuz wrote:

This is proof that I am the smartest, most intelligent person in all of humanity through all of time! Praise be to Me!!!!"

No, this is only proof that I am smarter than you, at least in the matters discussed here.

Cyracuz wrote:

That is effectively all you have been saying the whole time.

No, that's just you trying to escape my reasonings by attacking me personally -- not a very original strategy, by the way.

Cyracuz wrote:

Got any more good jokes?

So far I made only a few jokes, and most about you. You, on the other hand, in this post alone, made more jokes than I did in this whole thread.

Instead of a joke, what I have to you is what you are desperately trying to escape from with all this empty rhetoric: the three or four reasonings I will not repeat again and to which you still didn't answer.

Why don't you turn 180 (instead of 360) degrees and try to beat me in the proper field of logic?

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

Why don't you turn 180 (instead of 360) degrees and try to beat me in the proper field of logic?

Beat you? I knew you think this is a contest of wits, but you demonstrated that you have none long before I ever joined the thread...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Why don't you turn 180 (instead of 360) degrees and try to beat me in the proper field of logic?

Beat you? I knew you think this is a contest of wits, but you demonstrated that you have none long before I ever joined the thread...

Yes, beat me, since you insist in transforming this in a personal dispute that you must win at all costs. Beat me by showing this is wrong -- instead of showing your ignorance and incapacity (or at least refusal) to reason:

Code:

Nothing is not each being.

Not each being is not each being.

Any being is any other being.

Thanks to you, I made progress here: I saw "each" was the correct word to use, for example. I clarified some things to myself thanks to your previous tentatives of "beating" me. But now that you have no arguments left I am both happy for having found a form of putting it that you can only answer to by insulting me and sad because you consistently opt for insulting me rather than recognizing you have no arguments left.

1 Reply

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know