Absolute truth?

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

The answer to what being and nothingness are can only be found in those concepts themselves, and nowhere else:

being is a concept ? existence is a concept ?

I can see nothing as a concept , result of abstract thought

but being as a concept , ahhh ... no

1 Reply

@north,

north wrote:

guigus wrote:

The answer to what being and nothingness are can only be found in those concepts themselves, and nowhere else:

being is a concept ? existence is a concept ?

I can see nothing as a concept , result of abstract thought

but being as a concept , ahhh ... no

A concept is just a meaning, and since "being" has a meaning--precisely the opposite meaning of "nothing"--yes, it is a concept.

1 Reply

@guigus,

There really are no 'concepts'.

A 'concept' is a combination of characteristics that have plenty of measurable, definable 'proof' that humans agree on.

Pure Be-ing and no 'thing'(nothing) are one in the same.

Be-ing doesn't mean anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

JPLosman0711 wrote:

There really are no 'concepts'.

A 'concept' is a combination of characteristics that have plenty of measurable, definable 'proof' that humans agree on.

Pure Be-ing and no 'thing'(nothing) are one in the same.

Be-ing doesn't mean anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The meaning of a word is its concept, and a concept is the meaning of its corresponding word. Consequently, a concept is just a meaning.

Regarding "being," it means "existing" (but I suspect you already knew that, despite fighting it).

0 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

I agree in that concepts, thoughts, ideas, etc. are illusions, sometimes very useful concepts,other times not. I like the notion that "pure being" and "nothing" are "one in the same". I've always sensed that when I die I will become--in a special sense--at the same time Nothing and Everything. Indeed, I (and you) are that now, but ego blocks the view.
Another thing: Be-ing means do-ing. Right now I am doing me-ing (Of course there is no "I" who is me-ing, only our grammar makes it appear so).

Aren't we a bunch of conceptual mystics!
Right now I'm going to my zafu to clear out all this stuff. Don't ask why.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

While you are correct in most of your post I have to 'point to' some of what you've written as it indicates there is still some confusion on your part.

'Concepts'(combination of characteristics) are not useful at all. They are a mis-representation of who you really are. There is no 'when I die', you were already dead the moment you were born, you just do not know when it will happen.

You can either dis-entagle your 'self' from all the concepts(hoopla) or you can continue to go on as if you know what you're talking about.

1 Reply

@JPLosman0711,

O.K....as if I know what I'm talking about. Confused

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

I'm lost as to why all of you are trying to make sense in a world where nothing exists.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I think some of us are referring to a world's "contents" which are not as absolute, fixed, static, and substantial as language makes them seem.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

They are one and the same to this observer.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That's cool. I probably see them the same in my practical day-to-day life--that is when I'm not being theoretical with A2Kers or meditating.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm lost as to why all of you are trying to make sense in a world where nothing exists.

It's because nothing exists.

0 Replies

"In a small city where a barber shaves only and all citizens that do not shave themselves, does that barber shave himself?"

If he does, then he no longer shaves only the citizens that do not shave themselves, for he shaves a citizen (himself) that shaves himself. And if he does not, then he no longer shaves all the citizends that do not shave themselves, for he does not shave a citizen (himself) that does not shave himself.

In set language: A set of only and all sets not containing themselves must and must not contain itself.

So, although "everything" must be a set containing everything, to contain everything it must contain itself, possibly reproducing the paradox. And if it did not contain everything, then it would no longer be everything.

We know how Zermelo and Fraenkel got around this while creating modern set theory: by preventing any set from containing everything, so mathematics now believes that nothing is everything--which is just another way of saying that being (everything) and nothingness are the same.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Very good. Then it seems that logic does not necessarily refer to reality. I think this because, as you say, set theory saved itself from the paradoxes of logic by fiat (I'm thinking of Zeno here). How could Zermelo and Fraenkel actually discover that "nothing is everything" or did they just realize that it is logically essential that that be so?
Befuddled

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Very good. Then it seems that logic does not necessarily refer to reality. I think this because, as you say, set theory saved itself from the paradoxes of logic by fiat (I'm thinking of Zeno here). How could Zermelo and Fraenkel actually discover that "nothing is everything" or did they just realize that it is logically essential that that be so?
Befuddled

Although many solutions have been proposed to this paradox--of
which one resulted in today's canonical set theory by Zermelo and
Fraenkel--no proposed solution could let a set contain itself, which
would possibly reproduce the paradox. However, the concept of everything
must be a set, and a set containing itself--otherwise it is no longer
the set of everything. So avoiding the paradox requires everything to be
nothing, by which being and nothingness are the same.

1 Reply

@guigus,

I'm probably missing something here, but it seems that a "set" cannot contain EVERTHING. There cannot be a single set, a unity, only a multiplicity, at least more than one. Imagine the "category" of everything. It would not be a category.
Of course I'm not talking about empirical entities. Sets and categories exist only as thoughts. Therefore I'm not saying that there is no single all-inclusive set IN THE WORLD, only that it would not be useful for thought to make one up.

1 Reply

@Hermod,

One would hope that the 'red light' is 'red' to everybody else (unless colour blind). But what is really going on in this question? The notion that we cannot percieve someone elses perception of 'red' somehow alienates us from an 'ideal absolute redness', which merely means that subjectively, we all take a 'leap of faith' and trust that a motorist will stop at the 'red signal'. Whether the exact decoded information of 'red' is processed in someone's brain as exactly the same 'red' as another person is still being worked out and debated. Whether this is what 'absolute truth' means in the question is uncertain to me. I think 'absolute uncertainty' could be considered a 'truth'. Whether that 'truth' is absolute is another matter.

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

It's not about the color of lighted signals, because top lght is always green, and bottom light is red.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Not in Australia..

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

I was in Australia 3-months ago, and already forgot. However, my conclusion about the color of traffic lights still stands-including the placement of red and green. Once a driver knows which one is geen and red, it's no longer about color.

1 Reply

Absolute truth?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know