Monisticv reduction to the wert or wurd everything?

[TheVisionofEr]

Is the word or "subject matter" nature a word for everything? Thusly, should everything be a synonym for the word nature?

[nothing]

Is the word or "subject matter" nature a word for everything? Thusly, should everything be a synonym for the word nature?

Well the Hebrew word for 'GOD' as elohim has a gematria equaling 'nature'.
The same word contains both a 1D electric 'el' component and a 2D magnetic 'im' component
such to capture the essence of image and likeness, male and female, yang and yin, space and time etc.

However one can as easily let 'all' serve the same, whereas 'not' serves the negation of the same same.
This reveals a binary of definitions: {IS∞NOT} which, when incorporating 'all' becomes {ALL∞NOT}.

These serve as null-boundary universal operators. "To be... or not to be. That is the..." principle discretion.
Add in complimentary null-boundary universal roots {CAUSATION∞CESSATION} and you have yourself means of
monistic retroduction: to use the operators to derive any universal roots as desired, say, knowledge and belief:
{to KNOW}{ ALL (thus) NOT }{to BELIEVE}... approaches all-knowing
{to BELIEVE}{ ALL (thus) NOT }{to KNOW}... captures all belief-based ignorance(s) {CAUSING}/sustaining and/or
otherwise impeding on the {CESSATION} of {ALL} forms of human suffering.

If taking 'everything' to be 'all' while granting the negation as 'not' accomplishes the same.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is the word or "subject matter" nature a word for everything? Thusly, should everything be a synonym for the word nature?

Everything is a tautology of the single source, both as a truth value where existence alone is proof and as the variation of a single phenomenon through many.

[TheVisionofEr]

Is the word or "subject matter" nature a word for everything? Thusly, should everything be a synonym for the word nature?

Well the Hebrew word for 'GOD' as elohim has a gematria equaling 'nature'.
The same word contains both a 1D electric 'el' component and a 2D magnetic 'im' component
such to capture the essence of image and likeness, male and female, yang and yin, space and time etc.

However one can as easily let 'all' serve the same, whereas 'not' serves the negation of the same same.
This reveals a binary of definitions: {IS∞NOT} which, when incorporating 'all' becomes {ALL∞NOT}.

These serve as null-boundary universal operators. "To be... or not to be. That is the..." principle discretion.
Add in complimentary null-boundary universal roots {CAUSATION∞CESSATION} and you have yourself means of
monistic retroduction: to use the operators to derive any universal roots as desired, say, knowledge and belief:
{to KNOW}{ ALL (thus) NOT }{to BELIEVE}... approaches all-knowing
{to BELIEVE}{ ALL (thus) NOT }{to KNOW}... captures all belief-based ignorance(s) {CAUSING}/sustaining and/or
otherwise impeding on the {CESSATION} of {ALL} forms of human suffering.

If taking 'everything' to be 'all' while granting the negation as 'not' accomplishes the same.

And yet.. the standard view, and the staunch view of Mamonides, he who confontef the heathen hoard of the "Peripeyetics," is that G-d created the world ex nihilio. Suggesting that the nothing is not G-d.

[TheVisionofEr]

Is the word or "subject matter" nature a word for everything? Thusly, should everything be a synonym for the word nature?

Everything is a tautology of the single source, both as a truth value where existence alone is proof and as the variation of a single phenomenon through many.

Usually people contract nature with convention/law or with reason or with "conciousness." Ergo, following the view that determinations of term must have a contrast to narrow and define themselvs against.

[nothing]

And yet.. the standard view, and the staunch view of Mamonides, he who confontef the heathen hoard of the "Peripeyetics," is that G-d created the world ex nihilio. Suggesting that the nothing is not G-d.

What exactly is the "standard view"? Is not Mamonides dead?
What is 'confontef'? Do you mean confronted?
Why are you using 'G-d'? Do you observe "protecting" such a word/name?

G-d could not have created anything "ex nihilo" and never is that imparted in the book of Genesis. The earth existed (albeit was tohu v'bohu) and darkness existed, and an abyss was present, and the wind/spirit of G-d moved upon the face of the existent abyss. And saying G-d 'Let be: light,' and light was. Etc.

This notion that G-d created anything ex nihilo would entail denoting all that is described above as a constituency of ex nihilo, which excludes itself from being "ex nihilo" as even the earth existed, if even not of any physical form. Why should one believe physical manifestation is the only 'state' of what one can call 'all'? Suppose there is a physical and metaphysical 'cosmos' wherein velocity (motion, physical) and energy (will, metaphysical) are bound reciprocates? As above, so below, you know?

[TheVisionofEr]

No. This "tohu v'bohu" is said of the first two days. On the first God is said to create the void a d dark earth.

The "standard" means the most authoritative Jewish and christian sources. In contradisdibction to Aristotle espeacillay. The chief point seems to be that God is all powerful, though, according to the font of Catholic orthidoxy, Aquinas, he limits himslrf, potential ordinata, to reason. So, Thomas says, He cannot make a triangle but to have angles equal to two right angles.

By confront I mean, not to merely dismiss or charicature but to take in the best account and struggle with it.

[Eodnhoj7]

And yet.. the standard view, and the staunch view of Mamonides, he who confontef the heathen hoard of the "Peripeyetics," is that G-d created the world ex nihilio. Suggesting that the nothing is not G-d.

What exactly is the "standard view"? Is not Mamonides dead?
What is 'confontef'? Do you mean confronted?
Why are you using 'G-d'? Do you observe "protecting" such a word/name?

G-d could not have created anything "ex nihilo" and never is that imparted in the book of Genesis. The earth existed (albeit was tohu v'bohu) and darkness existed, and an abyss was present, and the wind/spirit of G-d moved upon the face of the existent abyss. And saying G-d 'Let be: light,' and light was. Etc.

This notion that G-d created anything ex nihilo would entail denoting all that is described above as a constituency of ex nihilo, which excludes itself from being "ex nihilo" as even the earth existed, if even not of any physical form. Why should one believe physical manifestation is the only 'state' of what one can call 'all'? Suppose there is a physical and metaphysical 'cosmos' wherein velocity (motion, physical) and energy (will, metaphysical) are bound reciprocates? As above, so below, you know?

Creation Ex nihilo could occur through a voiding of void synonymous to the negation of negation.

This double negation, or voiding of voiding, would reflect everything stemming from a single point under the principle of explosion or the big bang.

From contradiction anything occurs, this including the totality of being itself.

[TheVisionofEr]

Is the word or "subject matter" nature a word for everything? Thusly, should everything be a synonym for the word nature?

Everything is a tautology of the single source, both as a truth value where existence alone is proof and as the variation of a single phenomenon through many.

It would be hard to understand anything without distinctions. Such as nature distinguished from convention or law. So, you claim man should die in ignorance?

[TheVisionofEr]

And yet.. the standard view, and the staunch view of Mamonides, he who confontef the heathen hoard of the "Peripeyetics," is that G-d created the world ex nihilio. Suggesting that the nothing is not G-d.

What exactly is the "standard view"? Is not Mamonides dead?
What is 'confontef'? Do you mean confronted?
Why are you using 'G-d'? Do you observe "protecting" such a word/name?

G-d could not have created anything "ex nihilo" and never is that imparted in the book of Genesis. The earth existed (albeit was tohu v'bohu) and darkness existed, and an abyss was present, and the wind/spirit of G-d moved upon the face of the existent abyss. And saying G-d 'Let be: light,' and light was. Etc.

This notion that G-d created anything ex nihilo would entail denoting all that is described above as a constituency of ex nihilo, which excludes itself from being "ex nihilo" as even the earth existed, if even not of any physical form. Why should one believe physical manifestation is the only 'state' of what one can call 'all'? Suppose there is a physical and metaphysical 'cosmos' wherein velocity (motion, physical) and energy (will, metaphysical) are bound reciprocates? As above, so below, you know?

Creation Ex nihilo could occur through a voiding of void synonymous to the negation of negation.

This double negation, or voiding of voiding, would reflect everything stemming from a single point under the principle of explosion or the big bang.

From contradiction anything occurs, this including the totality of being itself.

But, there is only a void in the comments on the second day looking back at the first. Seemingly to say, the abyss was with specific distinctive features.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is the word or "subject matter" nature a word for everything? Thusly, should everything be a synonym for the word nature?

Everything is a tautology of the single source, both as a truth value where existence alone is proof and as the variation of a single phenomenon through many.

It would be hard to understand anything without distinctions. Such as nature distinguished from convention or law. So, you claim man should die in ignorance?

Distinctions are definitions, definition is the relationship between parts, the relationship between parts is an act of individuation. The nature of knowledge is a process of individuation inherent within both man's capacity of reasoning and his or her mode of being.

[Eodnhoj7]

What exactly is the "standard view"? Is not Mamonides dead?
What is 'confontef'? Do you mean confronted?
Why are you using 'G-d'? Do you observe "protecting" such a word/name?

G-d could not have created anything "ex nihilo" and never is that imparted in the book of Genesis. The earth existed (albeit was tohu v'bohu) and darkness existed, and an abyss was present, and the wind/spirit of G-d moved upon the face of the existent abyss. And saying G-d 'Let be: light,' and light was. Etc.

This notion that G-d created anything ex nihilo would entail denoting all that is described above as a constituency of ex nihilo, which excludes itself from being "ex nihilo" as even the earth existed, if even not of any physical form. Why should one believe physical manifestation is the only 'state' of what one can call 'all'? Suppose there is a physical and metaphysical 'cosmos' wherein velocity (motion, physical) and energy (will, metaphysical) are bound reciprocates? As above, so below, you know?

Creation Ex nihilo could occur through a voiding of void synonymous to the negation of negation.

This double negation, or voiding of voiding, would reflect everything stemming from a single point under the principle of explosion or the big bang.

From contradiction anything occurs, this including the totality of being itself.

But, there is only a void in the comments on the second day looking back at the first. Seemingly to say, the abyss was with specific distinctive features.

The negation of negation, as the voiding of void, is the premise for a circularity inherent within the capacity of all phenomena.

[TheVisionofEr]

Everything is a tautology of the single source, both as a truth value where existence alone is proof and as the variation of a single phenomenon through many.

It would be hard to understand anything without distinctions. Such as nature distinguished from convention or law. So, you claim man should die in ignorance?

Distinctions are definitions, definition is the relationship between parts, the relationship between parts is an act of individuation. The nature of knowledge is a process of individuation inherent within both man's capacity of reasoning and his or her mode of being.

So, you admit definitions exsist?

[Eodnhoj7]

It would be hard to understand anything without distinctions. Such as nature distinguished from convention or law. So, you claim man should die in ignorance?

Distinctions are definitions, definition is the relationship between parts, the relationship between parts is an act of individuation. The nature of knowledge is a process of individuation inherent within both man's capacity of reasoning and his or her mode of being.

So, you admit definitions exsist?

All variations from a single source necessitates all variations as a definition of that single source.

[TheVisionofEr]

Distinctions are definitions, definition is the relationship between parts, the relationship between parts is an act of individuation. The nature of knowledge is a process of individuation inherent within both man's capacity of reasoning and his or her mode of being.

So, you admit definitions exsist?

All variations from a single source necessitates all variations as a definition of that single source.

So, you admit nature is distinguished from something else and individualized?