Is there such a thing as no thing?

That is a thing. A thing is not its form, nor its material difference.

Neither form nor material difference are things.

In Aristotle's Metaphysics, he will explain the two different ways of understaning "part" one of which leads to a self-referential fallacy, which is the way history went, and the other to the metaphysics of languagek--which did not survive in history.

re-check my previous post...



So what is it ?

Both Aristotle and Plato tell you. A thing is a combination of both, the definition of a thing, any material difference in any form, i.e. limits boundary, etc. But, it is neither.

PS. A number is no more than a name derived from an ordered naming convention.

Secondly, there are three and only three primitive categories of names. Names for thing, names for a things forms, and names for a things material differenecs.

Definition. The name of a thing is equal to the names of a things forms and the material differences in those forms. This is the same as saying a thing is equal to its elements.

In a 3D computer game for instance what is the difference between "objects" in terms of code programming if not in the form in which zero´s and one´s are assembled ?

...given zero is no thing you are left with one´s...
...or do you want me to explain you how data is stored in a "wafer" of silicone ?

Search the Internet on language theory. Where does any of them say that they have any understanding of names to begin with. I have been trying to direct you to the source. Either go and learn or don't. It is up to you.

"Reality" is a collection of One´s and absent One´s aligned in different sequenced quantity´s...namely CODE.

...Understanding of "names"???
What in the hell are you talking about ???

No one is trying to describe what ONE is supposed to be as nature...but it certainly seams not dual...

...simply to assert that with a different sequencing you can bring about qualitative differences in computation...A FACT, not names...whatever you were trying to say...

Shape or Form in a bi-dimensional String of data is quantity of the same thing and its absence in a sequence...

...000010010010000...
...111101101101111...

Form is just sequences of order from one nature and absences...which brings quality divergence/diversity.

What are
"No one is trying to describe what ONE"

Check your dictionary, it is a string of names.
Like I said, if you cannot master the simple, don't kid youself into believing that you can do anything complex.

The works of Plato were all about language and language use. From the convention of names, to principles of logic.

I see you never paid attention to simple arithmetic. You start with numbers and you end up with a number. Generalized, in any logic sysetem, you start with names and the product is a name. duh.
Law of Identity. figure it out.

What does the word "Logic" mean?

λόγος, action, order, verb...what else ?



...besides ignorant you also fall into the joke category...

Well, one thing is for sure, at least you can use names like a caveman's club. Good show!

Primary Substance is essentially primary form...That which Is defined, which has à priori order, which is not nothingness, which must have bounds...

To say that a thing has substance and form simultaneously, is nothing other then to say that substance and form ultimately are the same...

Oh my, oh my...my friend...I dare to make a sufficient distinction between substance and form ! of you go....

Oh my, oh my...my friend...I dare you to make a sufficient distinction between substance and form ! of you go....

Unlike you, I can not say that the shape of a thing is the thing of which it is the shape. Or that the form of a thing is the material over which it is the form.
I guess I am just way too stupid!

However, General Semantics. "The Map is not the Territory." is something I do understand.

1 - Well I guess your just not that much versed in language after all...
Read something upon Information Theory and Holographic Universe for starters...

2 - A good example of "Language"/Code which makes you differ from anybody else is DNA...
...the form in which you are assembled is that which makes the difference...

You classically want to make a distinction between the concepts of Form/Substance Dichotomous approach, but ultimately fail to prove why the form must be not à priori has substance by Occam´s razor reduction ...

"Matter" actually, since the beginning of the XX century has fallen into an ubiquitous undefinable conception given wave/particle duality in quantum physics...what else can be said ?

The map is a representation, OK ? Not the thing...its a reduction...

...now, if it was the case that the map was a converted code of the original with the same string length, then you would not be able to tell the difference given the functions where similar...just like when you make a translation from English to Portuguese...which in turn says something about form and substance having something to do with functionality or relation in a established string length...

To further clarify:

If it was the case that such string was Infinite one would only speak in conversed form, given it might well be finite one can speak in form substance duality...

From BS to BS, quite a talent.

I have demonstrated how to multiply and divide a line by a line in geometry, never before demonstrated, perhaps you can now try the four basic moves in arithmetic with the language called geometry. You can find that on the archive also.

I was just too stupid to let all the BS go on forever, so I did the demonstration.

The figure is a reality, not a worthless theory. And, if you should ever master that one, try the Delian Quest. I did solve the Delian Problem. Not a theory either.

With enough study of geometry, you may learn the difference between a boundary, the material in a boudary, and the two together as a thing. Until you do, I have to agree with Plato and Aristotle, your not worth conversing with. When you have mastered it, you will know how names can and cannot be manipulated.

You are something all right...have fun with your "toys".
(You are far to off and delusional to worth the effort of clarity...)