No Nothingness

[Scott Mayers]

My argument would likely be approved by Kant, not against his view. That is, I am using only pure reasoning to infer that an "absolute nothing" exists.

Proof that: Absolutely Nothing --> Absolutely Something:

A(1)Absolultely Nothing exists....................................[Assumption]
1(2)Absolutely Nothing & Absolutely Something ..............[Absolutely Nothing = Absolute Nothing & Absolutely Nothing]
1(3)Absolutely Something exists..................................[&Elimination]

The premises here are apriori assumptions NOT based on empiricism even though the conclusion IS empirical. That is, we cannot find a better deductive proof that could lead to the true conclusion, even IF (1) was not merely an assumption but true.

But if (1) was not an assumption, then Absolutely Nothing is an apriori statement and demonstrates premises that are themselves not able to be false as the conclusion remains true as we expect. This proves in Kant's way of thinking, that this argument is 'sound' even if no one is around to observe the conclusion. Thus you wouldn't need a human observer to prove that something exists using only Pure Reasoning.

I can't grasp the main point above.
I'll give it a pass since I don't think there are any critical points there in.

Try later then. It is VERY critical. [Edit: I just reprinted the portion of most significance in your quote]

Please think again. If you are not familiar with the logic, I can explain. But this whole last part is actually an important set of points and proof about something very significant to Kant's points you quoted. At the bottom is a three-line argument that proves definitively that "If you assume Absolutely Nothing, then it necessarily follows that Absolutely Something exists. The last line is the conclusion.

The letter, 'A' to the left of (1) means "assumption" and is repeated to right as an explanation. Any conclusion must rely on ONLY what is assumed. In this case, the 1 beside the (2) means that it follows directly from (1). The conclusion is based on (2) and (2) is based on (1). That '1' beside (3) then assures us that the conclusion is based only on what is assumed at (1).

The last line, or conclusion, has "&Elimination" which is just the rule that if given "A and B", then you can eliminate either A or B to stand alone.

The proof there shows that the conclusion is true BY experience (ie, that something exists is no doubt true by one's senses, right?); But the question of whether the assumption is true that leads to that conclusion is not 'sensed' but assumed as a absolute. Thus this proves Kant's meaning precisely and maps to Platonic 'forms'.

[Skepdick]

Proof that: Absolutely Nothing --> Absolutely Something:

A(1)Absolultely Nothing exists....................................[Assumption]
1(2)Absolutely Nothing & Absolutely Something ..............[Absolutely Nothing = Absolute Nothing & Absolutely Nothing]
1(3)Absolutely Something exists..................................[&Elimination]

The premises here are apriori assumptions NOT based on empiricism even though the conclusion IS empirical. That is, we cannot find a better deductive proof that could lead to the true conclusion, even IF (1) was not merely an assumption but true.

I am not satisfied with your proof on the basis of the Cut-elimination theorem

The cut-elimination theorem states that any judgement that possesses a proof in the sequent calculus making use of the cut rule also possesses a cut-free proof, that is, a proof that does not make use of the cut rule.

If you can produce the cut-free proof you'll be closer to convincing me.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In his doctrine of transcendental idealism, Kant argued that space and time are mere "forms of intuition" which structure all experience,
and therefore that while "things-in-themselves" exist and contribute to experience, they are nonetheless distinct from the objects of experience.

From this it follows that the objects of experience are mere "appearances", and that the nature of things as they are in themselves is consequently unknowable to us.[27][28] In an attempt to counter the skepticism he found in the writings of philosopher David Hume, he wrote the Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1787),[29] one of his most well-known works. In it, he developed his theory of experience to answer the question of whether synthetic a priori knowledge is possible, which would in turn make it possible to determine the limits of metaphysical inquiry. Kant drew a parallel to the Copernican revolution in his proposal that the objects of the senses must conform to our spatial and temporal forms of intuition, and that we can consequently have a priori cognition of the objects of the senses.

I underlined the above from a quick search of his Wiki that asserts he DOES believe in Platonic forms. The Platonic forms assert reality is a relative illusion but that the 'form' is itself literally all that IS real: the 'absolutes'. Another description of this is ANY form of "idealism". His is a doctrine of "transcendental idealism". The quote you quoted does not assert what you said. In fact, he appears to be again addressing how what one CONCLUDES of something based on their senses is not literally the reality of the object out there yet the sensation assures that an ideal form nevertheless exists. And so nothing technically can experimentally prove it beyond 'speculation'. The experience of seeing something is itself the "Speculative Structure" of what one observes and cannot BE the object. However, the experience transcends [the experience points to SOME reality as existing beyond the observation but is something we cannot literally touch.

In the case of Kant's theories, generally it would not be effectively to rely on what is written without a reference to the totality of his work.

In the above quotes, 'forms of intuitions' are not the same as Platonic form.
I have already quoted from Kant where he critiqued Plato's 'forms' and 'universals' which exist independent of the human conditions.
For Kant, the intuitions are related of the sensible, the forms of intuition, i.e. space and time are not independent of the human conditions.
For Plato, the 'forms' are independent of the human conditions.

The above article has a serious error in stating,
"while "things-in-themselves" exist and contribute to experience, they are nonetheless distinct from the objects of experience."
The above is a wrong interpretation of Kant's view.
The above is based on the conventional sense, i.e. if we experience an object [phenomenon], then there must be a realobject of experience [noumenon].

But Kant had stated, "don't be too impulsive is jumping to conclusion there is a real object of experience - the noumenon.

Since at the stage where Kant has to exhaust to explain experience and the sensible, he made the assumption there is an object-that-is-experienced, but it is only an assumption not a real thing.

Here is what Kant state of the noumenon aka thing-in-itself,

• The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
  B311

Thus Kant made the assumption there is a real object of experience as a limiting concept and only of negative employment thus not admitting there is a real object of experience.

On the other hand, Plato hastily jumped to the conclusion there is a real object of experience, i.e. the form or universal object of experience.

After exhausting the explanation of the sensible, forms of intuition, space and time, Kant proceeded to investigate the assumed object-of-experience to find out whether there is any objective reality to it.
At the next phase of reality, Kant named the supposed object of experience [noumenon] as the thing-in-itself.

Upon thorough and exhaustive investigation, Kant conclude the ultimate object of experience, the noumenon aka the thing-in-itself is an illusion as he stated in the earlier quote I listed.

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
B397

This was happened to Plato who ascribed objective reality to the form or universal when upon detail reflection, there is no ultimate objective reality but there is only an illusion.

That is, the 'ideal form' of chair is proven to exist for merely experiencing one chair (observation) even though the particular chair you are observing is itself not able to be proven sound as a certain reality. So all that can be trusted is the 'form' that transcends and is transcended by the sensory phenomena.

"I see a chair" [observation] means certainly that "Some perception of that which you sit on exists absolutely as an IDEA"[interpretation of observation] but transcends the mere experience/observation in the form, "that which you sit on" [Ideal form(ula) as a DEFINITION of ANY chair universally.]

Plato used the "Cave analogy" (Republic), for instance, to demonstrate how you can have real proof that something absolutely real exists in principle beyond one's perspective, even though the perspective (shadows) are mere speculative inferences about the actual cause of the illusion, shadow, or observation. Since the analogy used the shadow as the perspective of something behind them, this shows how you may be realistically in error about presuming the shadows are the literal objects themselves but that something absolutely still exists more generally about both the reality and the image.

As with the above, the conventional view is this;
when one perceive and experience a "chair", it is conventionally logical there must be a 'real chair' that is experience.

Kant recognized the above point generally in the preface;

[..B xxvi]
But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears.

Thus Kant acknowledged within the conventional sense,
for the appearance of a chair it must be corresponded by a chair-that-appeared.
However one is limited to think about it only and not jump to the conclusion there is a real objective chair out there independent of human participation.
Why people jumped to conclusion there is a real objective chair that is perceived is due to psychology [evolutionary] and not based upon reality.

To Kant, Plato's philosophy regarding the forms, universals as really real and his theories related to the 'cave' is not realistic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My argument would likely be approved by Kant, not against his view. That is, I am using only pure reasoning to infer that an "absolute nothing" exists.

Proof that: Absolutely Nothing --> Absolutely Something:

A(1)Absolultely Nothing exists....................................[Assumption]
1(2)Absolutely Nothing & Absolutely Something ..............[Absolutely Nothing = Absolute Nothing & Absolutely Nothing]
1(3)Absolutely Something exists..................................[&Elimination]

The premises here are apriori assumptions NOT based on empiricism even though the conclusion IS empirical. That is, we cannot find a better deductive proof that could lead to the true conclusion, even IF (1) was not merely an assumption but true.

But if (1) was not an assumption, then Absolutely Nothing is an apriori statement and demonstrates premises that are themselves not able to be false as the conclusion remains true as we expect. This proves in Kant's way of thinking, that this argument is 'sound' even if no one is around to observe the conclusion. Thus you wouldn't need a human observer to prove that something exists using only Pure Reasoning.

I can't grasp the main point above.
I'll give it a pass since I don't think there are any critical points there in.

Try later then. It is VERY critical. [Edit: I just reprinted the portion of most significance in your quote]

Please think again. If you are not familiar with the logic, I can explain. But this whole last part is actually an important set of points and proof about something very significant to Kant's points you quoted. At the bottom is a three-line argument that proves definitively that "If you assume Absolutely Nothing, then it necessarily follows that Absolutely Something exists. The last line is the conclusion.

The letter, 'A' to the left of (1) means "assumption" and is repeated to right as an explanation. Any conclusion must rely on ONLY what is assumed. In this case, the 1 beside the (2) means that it follows directly from (1). The conclusion is based on (2) and (2) is based on (1). That '1' beside (3) then assures us that the conclusion is based only on what is assumed at (1).

The last line, or conclusion, has "&Elimination" which is just the rule that if given "A and B", then you can eliminate either A or B to stand alone.

The proof there shows that the conclusion is true BY experience (ie, that something exists is no doubt true by one's senses, right?); But the question of whether the assumption is true that leads to that conclusion is not 'sensed' but assumed as a absolute. Thus this proves Kant's meaning precisely and maps to Platonic 'forms'.

Ok I will have a serious look at it later.

However off hand;
A(1)Absolutely Nothing exists.......[Assumption]

According to Kantian theory,
There is no absolute nor the absolutely absolute existing as real.
There is no thing-in-itself, thus there is also nothing-in-itself existing as real.

Whatever exists must be justified empirically and philosophically, which your argument did not give any indication at all.

There is a need to be consistent with the syllogism.
If you start your premise with an assumption, then it follow your conclusion is merely an assumption, thus cannot be real.
As such if your conclusion is empirical your other premises must also be empirical, else there is an equivocation - Kant is very particular on this when he argued it is impossible to prove the existence of God because there is an inevitable equivocation from the transcendent to the empirical.

I will take a more serious look at your other points in the post later.

[Scott Mayers]

Proof that: Absolutely Nothing --> Absolutely Something:

A(1)Absolultely Nothing exists....................................[Assumption]
1(2)Absolutely Nothing & Absolutely Something ..............[Absolutely Nothing = Absolute Nothing & Absolutely Nothing]
1(3)Absolutely Something exists..................................[&Elimination]

The premises here are apriori assumptions NOT based on empiricism even though the conclusion IS empirical. That is, we cannot find a better deductive proof that could lead to the true conclusion, even IF (1) was not merely an assumption but true.

I am not satisfied with your proof on the basis of the Cut-elimination theorem

The cut-elimination theorem states that any judgement that possesses a proof in the sequent calculus making use of the cut rule also possesses a cut-free proof, that is, a proof that does not make use of the cut rule.

If you can produce the cut-free proof you'll be closer to convincing me.

Not applicable. (2) is just a definition of "Absolute Nothing". I originally stated it as that and then thought to explicitly assert it easier because Veritas may not be familiar with the details of Propositional Calculus. I could have first started with "Abs.Something = Abs.Something OR not-Abs.Something" with more clarity as a tautologous theorem (definition). Then you negate the terms to get the dual that happens to also define "Abs.Nothing".

There is no 'cut'. The elimination rule is NOT a 'cut' although you may have thought this appeared as such.

[edit-itional note: I thought of what that theorem meant apart from this argument, by the way. It is arguing that a "consistent" system requires a rule?theorem in it (or for whole premises that are theories) that says what has to be eliminated (or cut), such as the "reductio ad absurdum" rule that eliminates a premise assumed (or pre-sumed). I was playing with Turing tapes in my head when it dawned on me that the numbers that represent programs (or machines) eliminate more numbers than not as able to function. Remember that the 'decision' problem was a test program to find those numbers that represented machines that could or could not halt? Those numbers that cannot function as a consistent program are 'cut' by the Universal Turing machine's consistent elimination rules. You said you were looking for a non-cut version? The theorem appears to be saying that at least some cut rule is required to permit a system to be closed. Maybe I'm reading that wrong. But the argument above still stands.]

[Eodnhoj7]

Your thinking is very weird.

Philosophical Realism is merely a philosophical view represented by its features and within its framework and system.

It is a point of view thus an interpretation

When you claim The point or dot is in itself absolute and real., that is the philosophical realist's claim.

The point of view begins and ends with the dot thus it is an antirealist's claim.

Obviously whatever you claim you must prove your claim is true and represented in reality.
But you have not provided any proof to justify your claim.
You are merely speculating and guessing.

All phenomenon are composed of points given from a distance relative to another object the object is either dot or composed of dots. The breaking down of a phenomenon results in dots, with each dot broken down to further dots. The dot exists through the dot as the dot. It is the fundamental nature of recurssion which reflects across all phenomenon.

• 1. There are no things-in-themselves.
  2. A dot is a thing
  3. Therefore there are no dot-in-itself.

Thus there is no absolute dot.
If you claim for recursive-dot, it is only a relative dot, not a dot-in-itself that is independent of the human conditions.

False all dots break down to further dots thus the dot exists through itself as itself.

Note the fundamental particles, even at the electron levels are not 'dots'.
Scientists do not know what they really are except seeing their effects upon pixel-based screens.
You obviously have been deluded in thinking of dots based on empirical dots, e.g. " ." or dots as pixels on the screen.

The break down to point particles and all phenomenon given enough space are reduced to dots. Upon further examinations a dot up close is composed of further dots.

As I had stated earlier,
Obviously whatever you claim you must prove your claim is true and represented in reality.
But you have not provided any proof to justify your claim.
You are merely speculating and guessing.

False a dot divided/multiplied exists as further dots. The dot exists through itself as itself and is not limit to human observation given the beginning of all observation begins with a point in space. The dot is an empirical entity.

[color]

[Scott Mayers]

I can't grasp the main point above.
I'll give it a pass since I don't think there are any critical points there in.

Try later then. It is VERY critical. [Edit: I just reprinted the portion of most significance in your quote]

Please think again. If you are not familiar with the logic, I can explain. But this whole last part is actually an important set of points and proof about something very significant to Kant's points you quoted. At the bottom is a three-line argument that proves definitively that "If you assume Absolutely Nothing, then it necessarily follows that Absolutely Something exists. The last line is the conclusion.

The letter, 'A' to the left of (1) means "assumption" and is repeated to right as an explanation. Any conclusion must rely on ONLY what is assumed. In this case, the 1 beside the (2) means that it follows directly from (1). The conclusion is based on (2) and (2) is based on (1). That '1' beside (3) then assures us that the conclusion is based only on what is assumed at (1).

The last line, or conclusion, has "&Elimination" which is just the rule that if given "A and B", then you can eliminate either A or B to stand alone.

The proof there shows that the conclusion is true BY experience (ie, that something exists is no doubt true by one's senses, right?); But the question of whether the assumption is true that leads to that conclusion is not 'sensed' but assumed as a absolute. Thus this proves Kant's meaning precisely and maps to Platonic 'forms'.

Ok I will have a serious look at it later.

However off hand;
A(1)Absolutely Nothing exists.......[Assumption]

According to Kantian theory,
There is no absolute nor the absolutely absolute existing as real.
There is no thing-in-itself, thus there is also nothing-in-itself existing as real.

Whatever exists must be justified empirically and philosophically, which your argument did not give any indication at all.

There is a need to be consistent with the syllogism.
If you start your premise with an assumption, then it follow your conclusion is merely an assumption, thus cannot be real.
As such if your conclusion is empirical your other premises must also be empirical, else there is an equivocation - Kant is very particular on this when he argued it is impossible to prove the existence of God because there is an inevitable equivocation from the transcendent to the empirical.

I will take a more serious look at your other points in the post later.

I don't see you as understanding. Unfortunately I'd have to take some digression to determine why and it might require going through more effort than you'd be willing to. I disagree with your claims about an interpretation of Kant given so far what I know/read of him, including your quotes.

But regardless, if facts about who he is is contentious, it is better to address the particular concern MINUS whatever Kant has to say. My interpretation would be the same: You cannot presume that the empirical observation is any stronger logically than any apriori argument because the formal logics DEDUCE while the empirical observation is just INDUCED (asserts conclusions based upon collecting instances, both supporting or not and then let the one with more than 50% get the 'vote'.) Science is a "political" institute in that given EACH person cannot see literally through another's eyes, the scientists take a consensus to contentious issues. Given Kant was using only syllogisms, he missed out on the progress afterwards that pointed this out with better clarity. (like Popper, for instance)

Because our senses are not the 'objects' or outside world beyond the image the eye passes on symbolically to the brain, our sensations as also not interpretable directly. The brain connects MORE than one sense to form the conscious 'image' by some meaning. Then the senses, with respect to the brain, is also remote in the same way relatively of the sense to the observed phenomena. The layers only make it harder to be certain that we can know sincere objectivity of our environment.

This permits one to surmise that reality is still only reducible to symbols or pointers-to the reality. Then you just use the symbols in formal logic. If you are using some particular observations in a theorem, you can only assume it. Then the whole arguments are CONDITIONALS:

If (what you observe is true) and (the systems' rules you are using for the proof are assumed true), then the conclusion follows.

Induction was still new to natural philosophy and generally NOT preferable where a deductive one works. Science was just in its infancy. But there are also universal truths, like tautologies, that can act as premises apriori. Those in the time of Kant were debating whether you can prove all things in principle without specific observations. However, the practice of symbolic manipulation and language in general, or 'logics', are also 'empirical'. That is, we still initially learn about logic systems inductively. Then we go back to determine is if is "complete" as the 'logical experiments' similar to regular observation. The 'objects' in logic are then symbols that indirectly point to potential realities as relative 'images'.

[Scott Mayers]

• 1. There are no things-in-themselves.
  2. A dot is a thing
  3. Therefore there are no dot-in-itself.

Thus there is no absolute dot.
If you claim for recursive-dot, it is only a relative dot, not a dot-in-itself that is independent of the human conditions.

False all dots break down to further dots thus the dot exists through itself as itself.

Note the fundamental particles, even at the electron levels are not 'dots'.
Scientists do not know what they really are except seeing their effects upon pixel-based screens.
You obviously have been deluded in thinking of dots based on empirical dots, e.g. " ." or dots as pixels on the screen.

The break down to point particles and all phenomenon given enough space are reduced to dots. Upon further examinations a dot up close is composed of further dots.

As I had stated earlier,
Obviously whatever you claim you must prove your claim is true and represented in reality.
But you have not provided any proof to justify your claim.
You are merely speculating and guessing.

False a dot divided/multiplied exists as further dots. The dot exists through itself as itself and is not limit to human observation given the beginning of all observation begins with a point in space. The dot is an empirical entity.

You are assuming the 'dots' are "continuous" but ignore that even Calculus uses proofs are based on assuming some discrete point (like your 'dot') that later demonstrates HOW you can expand this to become continuous. In fact, set theory that is the foundation for all (or most) maths that use its initial factors as 'quantized' wholes and then proves inclusivity to 'continuity' later. Notice the comparison of QM and Relativity? You could also begin with some continuous logic to prove inclusive quantize parts but with way more difficulty than the other way around.

So both of you are right to some degree! You just look at it from different perspectives maybe? ?

[Eodnhoj7]

• 1. There are no things-in-themselves.
  2. A dot is a thing
  3. Therefore there are no dot-in-itself.

Thus there is no absolute dot.
If you claim for recursive-dot, it is only a relative dot, not a dot-in-itself that is independent of the human conditions.

False all dots break down to further dots thus the dot exists through itself as itself.

Note the fundamental particles, even at the electron levels are not 'dots'.
Scientists do not know what they really are except seeing their effects upon pixel-based screens.
You obviously have been deluded in thinking of dots based on empirical dots, e.g. " ." or dots as pixels on the screen.

The break down to point particles and all phenomenon given enough space are reduced to dots. Upon further examinations a dot up close is composed of further dots.

As I had stated earlier,
Obviously whatever you claim you must prove your claim is true and represented in reality.
But you have not provided any proof to justify your claim.
You are merely speculating and guessing.

False a dot divided/multiplied exists as further dots. The dot exists through itself as itself and is not limit to human observation given the beginning of all observation begins with a point in space. The dot is an empirical entity.

You are assuming the 'dots' are "continuous" but ignore that even Calculus uses proofs are based on assuming some discrete point (like your 'dot') that later demonstrates HOW you can expand this to become continuous. In fact, set theory that is the foundation for all (or most) maths that use its initial factors as 'quantized' wholes and then proves inclusivity to 'continuity' later. Notice the comparison of QM and Relativity? You could also begin with some continuous logic to prove inclusive quantize parts but with way more difficulty than the other way around.

So both of you are right to some degree! You just look at it from different perspectives maybe? ?

The pattern of the point repeating itself imprints itself on the point of view with the point of view beginning with the simple point. This is because nothing lies behind a thought but formless void. In observing the point the point repeats itself and mirrors itself through a repetition. Any form resulting in observation is the distinction of the simple point behind a point of view and the points which composing the phenomenon being observed.

The point as existing recursively is the point existing self referentially thus necessitating it as a foundation for awareness. This awareness is universal and stems across creation in degrees with these degrees being determined by reflection.

So a statement like "man is the measure of all things" is true yet the simple point, through which man exists through, is not limited to man and exists as beyond man as distinct phenomenon in itself. So man is the measure but it is not limited to man. Observation is a thing in itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't see you as understanding. Unfortunately I'd have to take some digression to determine why and it might require going through more effort than you'd be willing to.

I am trying hard but your argument do not make any sense to me from my perspective.

I could arrive at the similar conclusion like yours, i.e.

• 1. Empirically and mentally - Things exist
  2. Empirically and mentally: Adopting the Principle of Complementariness: for every thing existing there is an equivalent opposite
  3. Empirically and mentally - Therefore the opposite of things exist is, no things exist.

The principle of complementariness is axiomatic, e.g. Newton's Third law in Physics, Yin-Yang in philosophy, etc.
What is critical in my approach is I start with empirical reality which is verifiable.

You start with very contentious terms like absolutely, nothing, existence, as assumptions.
I don't see how can any argument be sound if the first premise is merely an assumption. Can you show me how it can be sound if we start with an assumption?

I disagree with your claims about an interpretation of Kant given so far what I know/read of him, including your quotes.

Since I have spent so much time in researching my current view of Kant, I would definitely be interested to know where I am wrong with my views.
Give one example.

But regardless, if facts about who he is is contentious, it is better to address the particular concern MINUS whatever Kant has to say. My interpretation would be the same:
You cannot presume that the empirical observation is any stronger logically than any a priori argument because the formal logics DEDUCE while the empirical observation is just INDUCED (asserts conclusions based upon collecting instances, both supporting or not and then let the one with more than 50% get the 'vote'.)
Science is a "political" institute in that given EACH person cannot see literally through another's eyes, the scientists take a consensus to contentious issues. Given Kant was using only syllogisms, he missed out on the progress afterwards that pointed this out with better clarity. (like Popper, for instance)

I [also Kant] do not think empirical observations are the sole determinant of truths.

I have always stated scientific truths or facts are at best polished-conjectures [hypotheses], but they are the best polished-conjectures we have which has high utilities values leveraged upon its credible features of verifiability, testability, consistency, repeatability, and others.

Kant did give high credence to Science and Mathematics but added their respective limitations must be covered by his sort of critical thinking.

I can agree with a priori arguments but their conclusions must be subsequently be verified empirically and philosophically before they are claimed to be real.
Otherwise, if you let loose [perhaps that is your intention] then we will end up with condoning people believing in a God which can lead to [had already led] terrible sufferings, evil and violence.

This is why Kant warned, where there are no empirical elements;

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
B397

-what results are illusions which are reified as real, objectively real.

Note 'syllogism' is not written-down arguments but they occur as algorithm deep in the brain that human has evolved with.
This is why we need to transpose Kant's view into neuroscience and neuro-psychology.

Because our senses are not the 'objects' or outside world beyond the image the eye passes on symbolically to the brain, our sensations as also not interpretable directly. The brain connects MORE than one sense to form the conscious 'image' by some meaning. Then the senses, with respect to the brain, is also remote in the same way relatively of the sense to the observed phenomena. The layers only make it harder to be certain that we can know sincere objectivity of our environment.

As I had stated, whatever is deemed to be objective within reality, it must be verified and justified as true not just empirically but philosophically as well.
Whatever is not yet known and speculated to be possible must be empirically and logically possible.

This is why Kant differentiated the empirically-philosophically possible from the empirically-philosophically impossible which are illusory such as a God, soul and a closed-WHOLE Universe.

Thus whatever that is yet known but postulated by you as objective, it must be empirically-philosophically possible.

This permits one to surmise that reality is still only reducible to symbols or pointers-to the reality. Then you just use the symbols in formal logic. If you are using some particular observations in a theorem, you can only assume it. Then the whole arguments are CONDITIONALS:

If (what you observe is true) and (the systems' rules you are using for the proof are assumed true), then the conclusion follows.

Again my point;
"whatever that is yet known but postulated by you as objective-reality, it must be empirically-philosophically possible."

Induction was still new to natural philosophy and generally NOT preferable where a deductive one works. Science was just in its infancy. But there are also universal truths, like tautologies, that can act as premises apriori. Those in the time of Kant were debating whether you can prove all things in principle without specific observations. However, the practice of symbolic manipulation and language in general, or 'logics', are also 'empirical'. That is, we still initially learn about logic systems inductively. Then we go back to determine is if is "complete" as the 'logical experiments' similar to regular observation. The 'objects' in logic are then symbols that indirectly point to potential realities as relative 'images'.

I agree with "the practice of symbolic manipulation and language in general, or 'logics', are also 'empirical', " i.e. fundamentally biological and thus empirical.
Note: The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology

But logic and rationality can also be abused [psychologically] to generate pseudo-rational conclusions that are illusory yet have some use leading to evil. Note Kant's quote B397 above.

Thus again;
"whatever that is yet known but postulated by any one as objective-reality, it must be empirically-philosophically possible" -thus verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

[Veritas Aequitas]

@ Scott Mayer

Here is why Kant focused in on the empirical [instead of a priori] and covered by his sort of Critical Thinking.
This is Kant's Copernican Revolution, i.e. instead of chasing the reality of ultimate reality from the a priori perspective which had failed since ancient times, Kant proposed we focus on the human factor [sensibility, intuition, etc.] instead to understand reality.

Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.

We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our [human] Knowledge.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.

We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest.

A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.
If Intuition must conform to the constitution of the Objects, I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the objects] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our [human] Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.

CPR Preface Bxvi - xvii

In a way, what Kant implied is, if we presume the object pre-existed objectively and waiting for humans to discover them, then we will end in failure as since the past.

However, if we view humans as co-creators of the reality [all objects therein] they are part of, then it is possible to understand what is objective reality which interdependent with humans.

Note my thread;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewforum.php?f=8

[Eodnhoj7]

The pattern of the point repeating itself imprints itself on the point of view with the point of view beginning with the simple point. This is because nothing lies behind a thought but formless void. In observing the point the point repeats itself and mirrors itself through a repetition. Any form resulting in observation is the distinction of the simple point behind a point of view and the points which composing the phenomenon being observed.

The point as existing recursively is the point existing self referentially thus necessitating it as a foundation for awareness. This awareness is universal and stems across creation in degrees with these degrees being determined by reflection.

So a statement like "man is the measure of all things" is true yet the simple point, through which man exists through, is not limited to man and exists as beyond man as distinct phenomenon in itself. So man is the measure but it is not limited to man. Observation is a thing in itself.

[Scott Mayers]

I don't see you as understanding. Unfortunately I'd have to take some digression to determine why and it might require going through more effort than you'd be willing to.

I am trying hard but your argument do not make any sense to me from my perspective.

I could arrive at the similar conclusion like yours, i.e.

• 1. Empirically and mentally - Things exist
  2. Empirically and mentally: Adopting the Principle of Complementariness: for every thing existing there is an equivalent opposite
  3. Empirically and mentally - Therefore the opposite of things exist is, no things exist.

The principle of complementariness is axiomatic, e.g. Newton's Third law in Physics, Yin-Yang in philosophy, etc.
What is critical in my approach is I start with empirical reality which is verifiable.

You start with very contentious terms like absolutely, nothing, existence, as assumptions.
I don't see how can any argument be sound if the first premise is merely an assumption. Can you show me how it can be sound if we start with an assumption?

"Absolutes" throw people off. They are just the most general and unique form(ula) of something.

"Absolute Nothing" doesn't have to be true to be true & not-true. It is inconsistent and so you may ask how can it mean anything 'real' right?

Absolute Nothingness is definable as "Absolutely Something AND Absolute Nothing" [definition and apriori or tautological]. As to whether the literal nature of Nothingness COULD be possible or not is irrelevant. I didn't finish the argument to its more proper expression as a CONDITIONAL. It is the conditional that is true. In that case, it doesn't rely on ANY actual truth of the antecedent. Note too that even empirical claims are assumptions in an argument. They are 'guests' of the system which only validates them.

Now, the 'soundness' can also be indeterminately true or false, especially where you want to show conditional statements. You cannot say this is 'impossible' and given you said, "What is critical in my approach is I start with empirical reality which is verifiable.", you should then be able to put your 'sound' proof of Nothing as 'empirical' into my conditional sentence and voila, it suddenly goes from indeterminate to sound.

Note that I originally used that example to address what you said about Kant against my interpretation. Even IF my interpretation of his position is wrong, what I expressed related to what I understood him as saying. But given you disagree and I am not interested in interpreting someone else's philosophy when I also require investing in it, I'll ignore my interpretation and stick to the topic of nothingness itself and the proof you critiqued. That is, I'm only going to focus on YOUR intepretation, not yours through Kant. You can still use him or others as supports but I may not interpret you fairly if I cannot interpret the quoted philosopher's own statements. I rewrote this from a prior longer one that I kept editing over and over. This should suffice. I will address some of the other issues you raised as we go along.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't see you as understanding. Unfortunately I'd have to take some digression to determine why and it might require going through more effort than you'd be willing to.

I am trying hard but your argument do not make any sense to me from my perspective.

I could arrive at the similar conclusion like yours, i.e.

• 1. Empirically and mentally - Things exist
  2. Empirically and mentally: Adopting the Principle of Complementariness: for every thing existing there is an equivalent opposite
  3. Empirically and mentally - Therefore the opposite of things exist is, no things exist.

The principle of complementariness is axiomatic, e.g. Newton's Third law in Physics, Yin-Yang in philosophy, etc.
What is critical in my approach is I start with empirical reality which is verifiable.

You start with very contentious terms like absolutely, nothing, existence, as assumptions.
I don't see how can any argument be sound if the first premise is merely an assumption. Can you show me how it can be sound if we start with an assumption?

"Absolutes" throw people off. They are just the most general and unique form(ula) of something.

"Absolute Nothing" doesn't have to be true to be true & not-true. It is inconsistent and so you may ask how can it mean anything 'real' right?

Absolute Nothingness is definable as "Absolutely Something AND Absolute Nothing" [definition and apriori or tautological]. As to whether the literal nature of Nothingness COULD be possible or not is irrelevant. I didn't finish the argument to its more proper expression as a CONDITIONAL. It is the conditional that is true. In that case, it doesn't rely on ANY actual truth of the antecedent. Note too that even empirical claims are assumptions in an argument. They are 'guests' of the system which only validates them.

The term 'absolute' is very contentious within philosophy.
Because it can be interpret as a relative-absolute [absolute temperature, monarchy, etc.] or an absolutely-absolute [God which is totally unconditional or things-by-themselves].

By the law of identity of classical logic, I canNOT see how "absolute Nothingness" can be equal to "Absolute Something AND Absolute Nothing.
If may be possible if you are using another sort of logic, if so, you need to mention it, e.g. Intuitional Logic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic

In the above case, I believe it would be better not to use the term 'absolute' unless you can convince the term is absolutely necessary for the case.

Empirical claims are not based on direct assumptions but based on verification of empirical evidences as conditioned upon a Framework and System of Reality [FSR], thus are conditional to the FSR.
When scientific truths and facts are put into applications, do any user questioned there are assumptions. What they are most concern is whether the scientific claims are testable, consistent, repeatable and reliable to be used based on what it claimed.

Thus if you want to convince anyone your beliefs are Justified True Beliefs, then you must qualify what is the FSR you are relying upon.

Now, the 'soundness' can also be indeterminately true or false, especially where you want to show conditional statements. You cannot say this is 'impossible' and given you said, "What is critical in my approach is I start with empirical reality which is verifiable.", you should then be able to put your 'sound' proof of Nothing as 'empirical' into my conditional sentence and voila, it suddenly goes from indeterminate to sound.

Not sure of your point.

However to me what is empirically "nothingness" is conditioned upon the "container" metaphor, i.e. if there are relatively no things [ordinary & conventional] in the container, then there is "nothing" in a container. This counters the OP's "No Nothingness".

But if we rely on the scientific FSR, what is perceived as nothing empirically in the conventional sense [container is empty] is false, because there are molecules of air inside an ordinary container, unless we introduced the concept of vacuum, even then at another level there may be other particles within an ordinary vacuum.

So there is no nothing-in-itself that can standalone absolutely by itself.
However there is "nothingness" relative to a Framework and System of Reality - this counters the OP.

Note that I originally used that example to address what you said about Kant against my interpretation. Even IF my interpretation of his position is wrong, what I expressed related to what I understood him as saying. But given you disagree and I am not interested in interpreting someone else's philosophy when I also require investing in it, I'll ignore my interpretation and stick to the topic of nothingness itself and the proof you critiqued. That is, I'm only going to focus on YOUR intepretation, not yours through Kant. You can still use him or others as supports but I may not interpret you fairly if I cannot interpret the quoted philosopher's own statements. I rewrote this from a prior longer one that I kept editing over and over. This should suffice. I will address some of the other issues you raised as we go along.

I believe based on what you quoted from the Wiki article, you believe the thing-in-itself exists as something unknown. That is the wrong interpretation of Kant's intended meaning of the thing-in-itself.

The very loose term "thing" in the term 'thing-in-itself' is very deceptive and often mislead [seduce] most to think there is still some thing to the term "thing-in-itself."

But in all over the Critique of Reason, Kant insisted what are things-in-themselves are only restricted to objects-of-thought never objects that are possible to to real [empirically and philosophically].

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know* these Objects as [real] Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves.

*To know an Object I must be able to prove its Possibility, either from its actuality as attested by Experience, or a priori by means of Reason.
But I can think whatever I please, provided only that I do not Contradict myself, that is, provided my Concept is a Possible Thought.
[..Bxxvi]

* know - the above is a note from Kant, not mine.
Thus to Kant the noumenon aka thing-in-itself can only be used as a limit only [like a false ceiling], never as as a possible real object.

The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
B311

Therefore the Wiki article [by many as well] is wrong in interpreting the thing-in-itself exists as some thing with possibility of reality.

[Eodnhoj7]

I don't see you as understanding. Unfortunately I'd have to take some digression to determine why and it might require going through more effort than you'd be willing to.

I am trying hard but your argument do not make any sense to me from my perspective.

I could arrive at the similar conclusion like yours, i.e.

• 1. Empirically and mentally - Things exist
  2. Empirically and mentally: Adopting the Principle of Complementariness: for every thing existing there is an equivalent opposite
  3. Empirically and mentally - Therefore the opposite of things exist is, no things exist.

The principle of complementariness is axiomatic, e.g. Newton's Third law in Physics, Yin-Yang in philosophy, etc.
What is critical in my approach is I start with empirical reality which is verifiable.

You start with very contentious terms like absolutely, nothing, existence, as assumptions.
I don't see how can any argument be sound if the first premise is merely an assumption. Can you show me how it can be sound if we start with an assumption?

I disagree with your claims about an interpretation of Kant given so far what I know/read of him, including your quotes.

Since I have spent so much time in researching my current view of Kant, I would definitely be interested to know where I am wrong with my views.
Give one example.

But regardless, if facts about who he is is contentious, it is better to address the particular concern MINUS whatever Kant has to say. My interpretation would be the same:
You cannot presume that the empirical observation is any stronger logically than any a priori argument because the formal logics DEDUCE while the empirical observation is just INDUCED (asserts conclusions based upon collecting instances, both supporting or not and then let the one with more than 50% get the 'vote'.)
Science is a "political" institute in that given EACH person cannot see literally through another's eyes, the scientists take a consensus to contentious issues. Given Kant was using only syllogisms, he missed out on the progress afterwards that pointed this out with better clarity. (like Popper, for instance)

I [also Kant] do not think empirical observations are the sole determinant of truths.

I have always stated scientific truths or facts are at best polished-conjectures [hypotheses], but they are the best polished-conjectures we have which has high utilities values leveraged upon its credible features of verifiability, testability, consistency, repeatability, and others.

Kant did give high credence to Science and Mathematics but added their respective limitations must be covered by his sort of critical thinking.

I can agree with a priori arguments but their conclusions must be subsequently be verified empirically and philosophically before they are claimed to be real.
Otherwise, if you let loose [perhaps that is your intention] then we will end up with condoning people believing in a God which can lead to [had already led] terrible sufferings, evil and violence.

This is why Kant warned, where there are no empirical elements;

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
B397

-what results are illusions which are reified as real, objectively real.

Note 'syllogism' is not written-down arguments but they occur as algorithm deep in the brain that human has evolved with.
This is why we need to transpose Kant's view into neuroscience and neuro-psychology.

Because our senses are not the 'objects' or outside world beyond the image the eye passes on symbolically to the brain, our sensations as also not interpretable directly. The brain connects MORE than one sense to form the conscious 'image' by some meaning. Then the senses, with respect to the brain, is also remote in the same way relatively of the sense to the observed phenomena. The layers only make it harder to be certain that we can know sincere objectivity of our environment.

As I had stated, whatever is deemed to be objective within reality, it must be verified and justified as true not just empirically but philosophically as well.
Whatever is not yet known and speculated to be possible must be empirically and logically possible.

This is why Kant differentiated the empirically-philosophically possible from the empirically-philosophically impossible which are illusory such as a God, soul and a closed-WHOLE Universe.

Thus whatever that is yet known but postulated by you as objective, it must be empirically-philosophically possible.

This permits one to surmise that reality is still only reducible to symbols or pointers-to the reality. Then you just use the symbols in formal logic. If you are using some particular observations in a theorem, you can only assume it. Then the whole arguments are CONDITIONALS:

If (what you observe is true) and (the systems' rules you are using for the proof are assumed true), then the conclusion follows.

Again my point;
"whatever that is yet known but postulated by you as objective-reality, it must be empirically-philosophically possible."

Induction was still new to natural philosophy and generally NOT preferable where a deductive one works. Science was just in its infancy. But there are also universal truths, like tautologies, that can act as premises apriori. Those in the time of Kant were debating whether you can prove all things in principle without specific observations. However, the practice of symbolic manipulation and language in general, or 'logics', are also 'empirical'. That is, we still initially learn about logic systems inductively. Then we go back to determine is if is "complete" as the 'logical experiments' similar to regular observation. The 'objects' in logic are then symbols that indirectly point to potential realities as relative 'images'.

I agree with "the practice of symbolic manipulation and language in general, or 'logics', are also 'empirical', " i.e. fundamentally biological and thus empirical.
Note: The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology

But logic and rationality can also be abused [psychologically] to generate pseudo-rational conclusions that are illusory yet have some use leading to evil. Note Kant's quote B397 above.

Thus again;
"whatever that is yet known but postulated by any one as objective-reality, it must be empirically-philosophically possible" -thus verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

"You start with very contentious terms like absolutely, nothing, existence, as assumptions.
I don't see how can any argument be sound if the first premise is merely an assumption. Can you show me how it can be sound if we start with an assumption?"

All sensory data is assumed and interpreted through the mind. Empiricism, and its by products, are assumed.


Truth occurs in grades and as existing in grades necessitates empirical elements being intertwined with abstract elements. The necessity of grades as having simultaneous true/false values necessitates all phenomena as having grades where they exist as both abstract/empirical natures. Abstractions, as emergent phenomena, cannot be completely separate from the physical.

1. The opposite of one thing existing, existence as whole, is nothing.
2. Nothing cannot be observed as a thing in itself except through multiple phenomena.
3. The opposite of one existence is many existences thus existence occurs in grades.
4. Being is thus subject to gradation thus resulting to many truth/false values where truth and falsity occur simultaneously as being is subject to context.