guigus
 
  1  
Tue 12 Jul, 2011 06:47 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:

guigus wrote:

Code:Nothing is not any single being.
Nothing is not every single being.
Not any single being is not every single being.
Any being is any other being.


I don’t understand your code so I’ll have to leave it there.


This is not a "code" (unlike your "A = B" equations): it is a reasoning, written in English, without any fancy words or exotic syntactical constructs---just four simple---and short---sentences. What is it precisely that you cannot understand?
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Tue 12 Jul, 2011 07:13 pm
@igm,
1. Nothing is not any single being.

This means that if you take no matter which particular being in isolation, that being will not be a nonbeing.

2. Nothing is not every single being.

This means that if you take all particular beings one by one, each one of those beings will not be a nonbeing.

3. Not any single being is not every single being.

This means that you cannot find even one particular being that is not each one of all particular beings. Why? Because nothing is both "not any single being" and "not every single being," so these two expressions are equivalent.

4. Any being is any other being.

This is just a (positive and simplified) rephrasing of the third sentence.
igm
 
  1  
Wed 13 Jul, 2011 07:01 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

1. Nothing is not any single being.

This means that if you take no matter which particular being in isolation, that being will not be a nonbeing.

2. Nothing is not every single being.

This means that if you take all particular beings one by one, each one of those beings will not be a nonbeing.

3. Not any single being is not every single being.

This means that you cannot find even one particular being that is not each one of all particular beings. Why? Because nothing is both "not any single being" and "not every single being," so these two expressions are equivalent.

4. Any being is any other being.

This is just a (positive and simplified) rephrasing of the third sentence.

To me this just means: nothing is not being i.e. nothing is not something. This can't be ALL you're trying to say. So as I said before I don't understand your code and now in addition to this I also don't understand this explanation of your code. So I'll have to leave it there. You should try to get someone else to agree that at the very least you have a valid argument that doesn’t just state the obvious.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Wed 13 Jul, 2011 08:08 am
@igm,
Can´t you simply see that his conclusion has nothing to do with his premises... Laughing
(I suppose he does n´t know what any means)
the amazing stuff is that people keep addressing him in a serious manner, go figure...
igm
 
  1  
Wed 13 Jul, 2011 08:18 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I agree.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Wed 13 Jul, 2011 08:42 am
@igm,
He probably meant something like : "beingness" is a property of any being...
but again his premises were about non being...this is like speaking about chickens to conclude about ducks...straight nonsense...
guigus
 
  1  
Wed 13 Jul, 2011 04:29 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:

guigus wrote:

1. Nothing is not any single being.

This means that if you take no matter which particular being in isolation, that being will not be a nonbeing.

2. Nothing is not every single being.

This means that if you take all particular beings one by one, each one of those beings will not be a nonbeing.

3. Not any single being is not every single being.

This means that you cannot find even one particular being that is not each one of all particular beings. Why? Because nothing is both "not any single being" and "not every single being," so these two expressions are equivalent.

4. Any being is any other being.

This is just a (positive and simplified) rephrasing of the third sentence.

To me this just means: nothing is not being i.e. nothing is not something. This can't be ALL you're trying to say. So as I said before I don't understand your code and now in addition to this I also don't understand this explanation of your code. So I'll have to leave it there. You should try to get someone else to agree that at the very least you have a valid argument that doesn’t just state the obvious.


So you don't understand me because I am telling you the obvious?
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Wed 13 Jul, 2011 04:31 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

He probably meant something like : "beingness" is a property of any being...
but again his premises were about non being...this is like speaking about chickens to conclude about ducks...straight nonsense...


With what part of my reasoning you do not agree? That nothing is not any single being? If so, then tell me: which being is nothing? Or that nothing is not every single being? If so, then tell me: how nothing can be not any single being without being also not every single being?

Nonsense (to be polite) is not admitting that nothing is not any and every single being.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Wed 13 Jul, 2011 04:52 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:

guigus wrote:

1. Nothing is not any single being.

This means that if you take no matter which particular being in isolation, that being will not be a nonbeing.

2. Nothing is not every single being.

This means that if you take all particular beings one by one, each one of those beings will not be a nonbeing.

3. Not any single being is not every single being.

This means that you cannot find even one particular being that is not each one of all particular beings. Why? Because nothing is both "not any single being" and "not every single being," so these two expressions are equivalent.

4. Any being is any other being.

This is just a (positive and simplified) rephrasing of the third sentence.

To me this just means: nothing is not being i.e. nothing is not something.


So the sentence "any being is any other being" to you means that "nothing is not being"?
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Wed 13 Jul, 2011 08:14 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

He probably meant something like : "beingness" is a property of any being...
but again his premises were about non being...this is like speaking about chickens to conclude about ducks...straight nonsense...


Who do you think should be taken seriously? A guy that hopelessly confuses logic with rhetoric?

So I tell you that nothing is not any single being. Am I wrong? (Are you capable of logically addressing that question? I suspect not, since this would mean to agree with me. But hey, why don't you surprise me?)
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Wed 13 Jul, 2011 08:23 pm
@guigus,
Ah, guigus, guigus. Remember to whom you are speaking. Fil Albuquerque is a pretty balloon, all filled up with lots and lots of hot air, floating over the streams and fields (and threads) of a2k, from to time deigning to make a comment, even if disparaging, to us mere mortals below. Safest bet is to ignore him. He might go away.
jovie
 
  1  
Thu 14 Jul, 2011 03:42 am
@mark noble,
Mark Nobell

Why does your spinal cord Hate you?










It's because of this
-~







.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Thu 14 Jul, 2011 07:05 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

Ah, guigus, guigus. Remember to whom you are speaking. Fil Albuquerque is a pretty balloon, all filled up with lots and lots of hot air, floating over the streams and fields (and threads) of a2k, from to time deigning to make a comment, even if disparaging, to us mere mortals below. Safest bet is to ignore him. He might go away.


Unfortunately, he is one of the very few addressing me or commenting on my posts. So why don't you join him by also addressing my posts, which would make it easier for me to follow your advice?
Chights47
 
  1  
Thu 14 Jul, 2011 09:41 am
@guigus,
I wouldn't mind discussing something else rather than the whole nothing topic. I just that topic is played out.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Thu 14 Jul, 2011 09:57 am
@Chights47,
...there´s nothing left to talk about in here...unless of course one wants to indulge in Lapalice nonsense like a day is a day and a night is a night and a candle is a candle and other trivial truth like statements...

...plus, bringing a distinction between plural and singular in nothingness as if nothingness were to need such distinction in the absence of any property´s tops the drama with a crown of stupidity...
guigus
 
  1  
Thu 14 Jul, 2011 10:10 am
@Chights47,
Chights47 wrote:

I wouldn't mind discussing something else rather than the whole nothing topic. I just that topic is played out.


So you agree that being and nothingness are the same?
guigus
 
  1  
Thu 14 Jul, 2011 10:11 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...there´s nothing left to talk about in here...unless of course one wants to indulge in Lapalice nonsense like a day is a day and a night is a night and a candle is a candle and other trivial truth like statements...

...plus, bringing a distinction between plural and singular in nothingness as if nothingness were to need such distinction in the absence of any property´s tops the drama with a crown of stupidity...


So much talk and insults only to avoid answering my question: do you agree that nothing is not any single being?
Chights47
 
  1  
Thu 14 Jul, 2011 10:23 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

Chights47 wrote:

I wouldn't mind discussing something else rather than the whole nothing topic. I just that topic is played out.


So you agree that being and nothingness are the same?
...this is why few people continue to address you or your comments. You can really only talk about a topic for so long, regardless of the outcome, for so long until it's played out.
guigus
 
  1  
Thu 14 Jul, 2011 10:30 am
@Chights47,
Chights47 wrote:

guigus wrote:

Chights47 wrote:

I wouldn't mind discussing something else rather than the whole nothing topic. I just that topic is played out.


So you agree that being and nothingness are the same?
...this is why few people continue to address you or your comments. You can really only talk about a topic for so long, regardless of the outcome, for so long until it's played out.


Not "regardless of the outcome": so far I have seen only two "outcomes" in here: my being misunderstood or ignored. You, for instance, just ignored me by not answering to my simple question: do you agree that being and nothingness are the same? Until you stop ignoring me, this discussion will hardly be "played out"---in fact, it will have never even started.
Chights47
 
  1  
Thu 14 Jul, 2011 10:38 am
@guigus,
Yes, being and nothingness can be the same thing. What's the next topic other than this "nothingness" then?
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » DOES NOTHING EXIST???
  3. » Page 41
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/17/2025 at 07:45:43
▲ ▼