What is philosophy and what is its purpose?

[Skepdick]

What is the difference between nothing and something?

Bleedin' obvious.

No juxtaposition is obvious, unless you can conceptualise both. I can't conceptualise 'nothing'.

I can conceptualise a universe where the Anthropic principle doesn't hold.

[uwot]

No juxtaposition is obvious, unless you can conceptualise both.

Bollocks. It's not a juxtaposition. Ya don't have have to conceptualise nothing to know perfectly well that something, if only a current experience, exists.

[Skepdick]

Bollocks. It's not a juxtaposition. Ya don't have have to conceptualise nothing to know perfectly well that something, if only a current experience, exists.

But I don't know that experience exists. I know that I experience.

And so the question really boils down to juxtaposition again. Does 'experiencing' and 'existing' mean the same thing or not?

[uwot]

But I don't know that experience exists. I know that I experience.

That's the invalid leap that Malebranche pulled Descartes up on. It cannot be logically inferred that there is any 'I' that corresponds to the experience of 'I' beyond the experience itself. It is only the experience that is known to exist.

And so the question really boils down to juxtaposition again. Does 'experiencing' and 'existing' mean the same thing or not?

You and I clearly mean different things by juxtaposition then.

[surreptitious57]

This place where we are - it could be nothing . Something is elsewhere

This is both logically and linguistically impossible and demonstrably so too

By referring to here as this place then it is a physical location / point in spacetime and so therefore exists
Were it absolute nothing then nothing within it could exist including your own mind which made the claim

And I say absolute nothing rather than nothing because nothing is actually something - so the distinction is an important one
Most of space is nothing but is something at the classical level not the quantum level where absolute nothing actually exists

[uwot]

This place where we are - it could be nothing . Something is elsewhere

This is both logically and linguistically impossible and demonstrably so too.

You're too kind surreptitious 57. It's fucking gibberish.

[Dubious]

What is the difference between nothing and something?

Nothing! If nothing is considered as something. In that case, nothing is the root of ALL somethings. The situation couldn't be clearer!

[Sculptor]

This place where we are - it could be nothing . Something is elsewhere

This is both logically and linguistically impossible and demonstrably so too.

You're too kind surreptitious 57. It's fucking gibberish.

Heinz 57 exists!

[Skepdick]

It cannot be logically inferred that there is any 'I' that corresponds to the experience of 'I' beyond the experience itself. It is only the experience that is known to exist.

Hold! ON!

If "only the experience that is known to exist" then you can't appeal to logic.
Is it also known that logic exists? Which logic is known? Aristotelian, Nyaya, Kathavatthu?

I think you and I clearly mean different things by "only", and you are clearly taking logic for granted.

Experience is known. Experience leads to self-awareness, therefore "I experience" is the first utterance of the experiencer.
The experiencer knows nothing of logic for he is yet to invent it.

Deskartes was a man who never managed to still his thoughts long enough to notice that experience (being? existing?) is a priori thought.
Can you really fault him? His very existence was at stake, given his belief.

You and I clearly mean different things by juxtaposition then.

Lets find out.

As far as you are concerned, are the two phrases "I experience" and "I exist" synonymous; or do they mean different thigns?
If they mean different things - what's the difference?

That's juxtaposition to me.

[Skepdick]

This is both logically and linguistically impossible and demonstrably so too

You don't need neither logic nor language to experience, because logic and language are invented by the experiencer.

But if we are get down to physics. If there's matter and anti-matter, there could just as well be something and nothing as polar opposites.

You don't know what nothing is.

[Age]

Logic could prove or disprove things.

As I said, in two and a half thousand years, logic has proven just two fundamental premises. If you can come up with a third, you will go down in history as one of the greatest philosophers. Best of luck.

Do you believe that logic has proven only just those two premises?

Do you believe that logic could not prove any other premise?

But believing, or disbelieving, some things does not allow logic to do its work.

Well, ya can't do logic without premises.

Why did this even come into thought?

I never said any thing to even remotely suggest otherwise.

It's a matter of taste whether you choose to believe them.

Obviously. Could there be any thing you believe, which you chose not to?

[Age]

What do you mean by 'proven two fundamental premises' ? A proven premise is not a premise.

Well, Kant said there are no analytic a posteriori truths. So you're in good company. But:

Which two premises are you thinking of?

As above:
1. There is something.
2. There is thought.

If there is something,
And, there is thought,
Then, there is some thing aware of this.

Could it be true that there is no thing with awareness?
Not if there is some thing aware.

Is there some thing aware of this?

If yes, then is this just another proven fundamental premise?

There really is nothing complex nor hard in Life.

[Age]

What is the difference between nothing and something?

Bleedin' obvious.

No juxtaposition is obvious, unless you can conceptualise both. I can't conceptualise 'nothing'.

But you can not conceptualize any thing, which would counter your own assumptions and beliefs. This is exactly how assumptions and beliefs distorts a person's ability to see the Truth of things.

If you can not and will not conceptualize 'nothing', then this is just another example of how believing, or disbelieving, some things does not allow logic to do its work.

'nothing' is literally no thing. If you can not conceptualize no thing, then so be it. There is no thing any one else can do for you.

I can conceptualise a universe where the Anthropic principle doesn't hold.

Who cares?

[Age]

Bollocks. It's not a juxtaposition. Ya don't have have to conceptualise nothing to know perfectly well that something, if only a current experience, exists.

But I don't know that experience exists. I know that I experience.

Then you KNOW there IS some thing.

And so the question really boils down to juxtaposition again. Does 'experiencing' and 'existing' mean the same thing or not?

We know you say that you "can not" conceptualize no thing, BUT can you conceptualize some thing?

If you know there is some thing, then the premise There is something is proven.

Is 'experiencing' some thing?
Is 'existing' some thing?

If there is an 'I' that experiences, then is that 'I' some thing.

If there is some thing, then there is some 'thing'.

Even though there can still be no thing, as well as some thing, it is quite obvious that there is some thing. If you are unable to conceptualize this True Fact, then that is most unfortunate, for 'you'.

Also, trying to move away from this Fact, without accepting it, and trying to deflect onto other issues is not a logical way to try and prove that your own views and beliefs are true, let alone even somewhat true or even at all true.

[uwot]

I wouldn't have bothered, but as you have edited your post 22 times, you clearly want it to be taken seriously. Very well.

If "only the experience that is known to exist" then you can't appeal to logic.
Is it also known that logic exists? Which logic is known? Aristotelian, Nyaya, Kathavatthu?

I think you and I clearly mean different things by "only", and you are clearly taking logic for granted.

As I pointed out, the sentences: There is nothing and There is no thought, are self-refuting in any logical system that isn't utter bollocks.

Experience is known. Experience leads to self-awareness, therefore "I experience" is the first utterance of the experiencer.

In which logical system does any of that follow? Yeah, we all know from experience that we experience, and it is perfectly reasonable to conclude from the wealth of empirical data that there is an 'I' that is experiencing - that's what Descartes did. But it is conceivable that all that exists, ever has or ever will, is the immediate sensations anyone is having at any given time. Nobody to my knowledge has ever taken that seriously, possibly because it is unlikely they would have bothered to write it down, but there are plenty of idealists who have argued coherently that only thought exists. It's overcooking parsimony, in my view, but for all I know, they're right.

The experiencer knows nothing of logic for he is yet to invent it.

Right. And if he invents a logic according to which the sentence 'I don't exist' can be uttered cogently, he is either a genius, or more likely a blithering half-wit.

Deskartes was a man who never managed to still his thoughts long enough to notice that experience (being? existing?) is a priori thought.
Can you really fault him? His very existence was at stake, given his belief.

I'll take that as a rhetorical flourish.

You and I clearly mean different things by juxtaposition then.

Lets find out.

As far as you are concerned, are the two phrases "I experience" and "I exist" synonymous; or do they mean different thigns?
If they mean different things - what's the difference?

That's juxtaposition to me.

Yep, we definitely mean different things by juxtaposition.