The Perfect Form

[Eodnhoj7]

An infinite number of forms would be the same as nothing and if it is a thing it has a form. Picture a square. The square is surrounded by and filled with squares infinitely. The spaces between the squares is also filled with infinite squares and so on and so forth infinitely. A blankness results and yet there is an infinite number of squares while there only being the same square under an infinite number of contexts relative to itself as each square provides the context through which the other squares occur. The square is its own context. The blankness, the nothingness, is the same as the form, the same as the square. This is as the Daoist's say "the great square has no corners" and as the Buddhist's say "form is emptiness and emptiness is form". The form is perfect in these regards as there is nothing to be added to or taken away from as nothing can be subtracted from or added to nothingness for if this where so there would be no nothingness.

[Impenitent]

perfect form...

function makes the form...

Brick House

-Imp

[godelian]

The form is perfect in these regards as there is nothing to be added to or taken away from as nothing can be subtracted from or added to nothingness for if this where so there would be no nothingness.

Yes, but there is still another problem with "nothing". Not a house is not the same as not a car or not a hamburger.

Nothing has a type.

The emptiness of a box of chocolates is not the same as the emptiness of an apartment. You can clearly see that in software:

Code: Select all

//-------------------------------------
//Example 1: no integers 
//-------------------------------------

int arr[0];  
// This is a valid but effectively empty
// array, with zero elements.

//-------------------------------------
//Example 2: no integers 
//allocated dynamically on the heap
//-------------------------------------

#include <stdlib.h>

int *arr = (int *)malloc(
                   0 * sizeof(int)); 
// Dynamically allocate an empty array

//-------------------------------------
//Example 3: no strings 
//-------------------------------------

char *arr[0];  
// Array of 0 strings (empty array)

//-------------------------------------
//Example 4: no strings 
//Dynamically allocated on the heap
//-------------------------------------

#include <stdlib.h>

int n = 0;  // Example number of strings
char **arr = (char **)malloc(
                n * sizeof(char *));  
// Dynamically allocate memory
//  for n string pointers

for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
    arr[i] = NULL;  
    // Initialize each string pointer to 
    // NULL (empty string)
}

The above are all variations of exactly nothing in software. The entity "nothing" is not a unique or even an unambiguous notion.

Each of the different nothings mentioned above still satisfies the core definition of nothing, i.e. "there is nothing to be added to or taken away from as nothing can be subtracted from or added to nothingness for if this where so there would be no nothingness".

It is paradoxical that there exist a unthinkably large multitude of different nothings. At the metalevel, nothing is itself not nothing but rather a gigantic collection of nothingness things that individually represents one possible take on what is nothing.

The most meaningless version of nothing is undoubtedly the void null pointer:

Code: Select all

void *ptr = NULL;  // Null void pointer

It represents nothing of an unspecified nature. It is a seemingly incomplete definition but it is still perfectly valid because an address that does not point to anything in particular is still a legitimate construct.

[Eodnhoj7]

The form is perfect in these regards as there is nothing to be added to or taken away from as nothing can be subtracted from or added to nothingness for if this where so there would be no nothingness.

Yes, but there is still another problem with "nothing". Not a house is not the same as not a car or not a hamburger.

Nothing has a type.

The emptiness of a box of chocolates is not the same as the emptiness of an apartment. You can clearly see that in software:

Code: Select all

//-------------------------------------
//Example 1: no integers 
//-------------------------------------

int arr[0];  
// This is a valid but effectively empty
// array, with zero elements.

//-------------------------------------
//Example 2: no integers 
//allocated dynamically on the heap
//-------------------------------------

#include <stdlib.h>

int *arr = (int *)malloc(
                   0 * sizeof(int)); 
// Dynamically allocate an empty array

//-------------------------------------
//Example 3: no strings 
//-------------------------------------

char *arr[0];  
// Array of 0 strings (empty array)

//-------------------------------------
//Example 4: no strings 
//Dynamically allocated on the heap
//-------------------------------------

#include <stdlib.h>

int n = 0;  // Example number of strings
char **arr = (char **)malloc(
                n * sizeof(char *));  
// Dynamically allocate memory
//  for n string pointers

for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
    arr[i] = NULL;  
    // Initialize each string pointer to 
    // NULL (empty string)
}

The above are all variations of exactly nothing in software. The entity "nothing" is not a unique or even an unambiguous notion.

Each of the different nothings mentioned above still satisfies the core definition of nothing, i.e. "there is nothing to be added to or taken away from as nothing can be subtracted from or added to nothingness for if this where so there would be no nothingness".

It is paradoxical that there exist a unthinkably large multitude of different nothings. At the metalevel, nothing is itself not nothing but rather a gigantic collection of nothingness things that individually represents one possible take on what is nothing.

The most meaningless version of nothing is undoubtedly the void null pointer:

Code: Select all

void *ptr = NULL;  // Null void pointer

It represents nothing of an unspecified nature. It is a seemingly incomplete definition but it is still perfectly valid because an address that does not point to anything in particular is still a legitimate construct.

If nothing is a type then it is not nothing, to speak the word "nothing" is a contradiction.

If nothing is a type then a type is nothing as it has infinite meanings fundamentally leaving it without distinction in its totality.

[godelian]

If nothing is a type then it is not nothing, to speak the word "nothing" is a contradiction.

First of all, the map ("the word") is not the territory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80 ... y_relation

The map–territory relation is the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it. Mistaking the map for the territory is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone confuses the semantics of a term with what it represents.

The word "nothing" is not nothing. Believing this, is a map-territory mistake.

Secondly, there is no requirement for a word to be autological. It can perfectly well be heterological:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autological_word

An autological word (or homological word)[1] expresses a property that it also possesses. For example, the word "word" is a word, the word "English" is in English, the word "writable" is writable, and the word "pentasyllabic" has five syllables.

The opposite, a heterological word, does not apply to itself. For example, the word "palindrome" is not a palindrome, "long" is a short word, "monosyllabic" has more than one syllable, "hyphenated" is not hyphenated, and, inversely, "non-hyphenated" is hyphenated.

For example, "Ingles" (in Spanish) or "Anglais" (in French) express the notion of "English" but are absolutely not English words. These words are not autological. The word "nothing" is also not autological, because the word does not have the property of being nothing.

If nothing is a type then a type is nothing

Not all types are "essentially nothing". Most are actually not. A type may, however, be able to represent "nothing of its type":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullable_type

Nullable types are a feature of some programming languages which allow a value to be set to the special value NULL instead of the usual possible values of the data type.

An integer variable may represent integers, but 0 (zero) is a special case because 0 in many programming languages can mean "false". Also this doesn't give us any notion of saying that the variable is empty, a need for which occurs in many circumstances. This need can be achieved with a nullable type.

In contrast, object pointers can be set to NULL by default in most common languages, meaning that the pointer or reference points to nowhere, that no object is assigned (the variable does not point to any object). Nullable references were invented by C. A. R. Hoare in 1965 as part of the Algol W language. Hoare later described his invention as a "billion-dollar mistake". This is because object pointers that can be NULL require the user to check the pointer before using it and require specific code to handle the case when the object pointer is NULL.

A nullable type is one for which the value can be nothing. The need to deal with the notion of "nothing" is a multibillion-dollar problem in the software industry. Nothing is an enormously complicated thing. It is full of intricate issues causing an inordinate number of bugs.

[Eodnhoj7]

If nothing is a type then it is not nothing, to speak the word "nothing" is a contradiction.

First of all, the map ("the word") is not the territory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80 ... y_relation

The map–territory relation is the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it. Mistaking the map for the territory is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone confuses the semantics of a term with what it represents.

The word "nothing" is not nothing. Believing this, is a map-territory mistake.

Secondly, there is no requirement for a word to be autological. It can perfectly well be heterological:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autological_word

An autological word (or homological word)[1] expresses a property that it also possesses. For example, the word "word" is a word, the word "English" is in English, the word "writable" is writable, and the word "pentasyllabic" has five syllables.

The opposite, a heterological word, does not apply to itself. For example, the word "palindrome" is not a palindrome, "long" is a short word, "monosyllabic" has more than one syllable, "hyphenated" is not hyphenated, and, inversely, "non-hyphenated" is hyphenated.

For example, "Ingles" (in Spanish) or "Anglais" (in French) express the notion of "English" but are absolutely not English words. These words are not autological. The word "nothing" is also not autological, because the word does not have the property of being nothing.

If nothing is a type then a type is nothing

Not all types are "essentially nothing". Most are actually not. A type may, however, be able to represent "nothing of its type":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullable_type

Nullable types are a feature of some programming languages which allow a value to be set to the special value NULL instead of the usual possible values of the data type.

An integer variable may represent integers, but 0 (zero) is a special case because 0 in many programming languages can mean "false". Also this doesn't give us any notion of saying that the variable is empty, a need for which occurs in many circumstances. This need can be achieved with a nullable type.

In contrast, object pointers can be set to NULL by default in most common languages, meaning that the pointer or reference points to nowhere, that no object is assigned (the variable does not point to any object). Nullable references were invented by C. A. R. Hoare in 1965 as part of the Algol W language. Hoare later described his invention as a "billion-dollar mistake". This is because object pointers that can be NULL require the user to check the pointer before using it and require specific code to handle the case when the object pointer is NULL.

A nullable type is one for which the value can be nothing. The need to deal with the notion of "nothing" is a multibillion-dollar problem in the software industry. Nothing is an enormously complicated thing. It is full of intricate issues causing an inordinate number of bugs.

Words have meaning as they point to experiences, the word nothing has no meaning for nothing is not a thing and a word is a thing and meaning requires things. It is a contradiction.

We will start there, rather than extending the argument over several points and both of us ending in a word salad relative to each other's viewpoints.

[godelian]

Words have meaning as they point to experiences, the word nothing has no meaning for nothing is not a thing and a word is a thing and meaning requires things. It is a contradiction.

The word "nothing" is heterological.

It simply does not apply to itself.

It is quite common for words to be heterological. For example, word "long" is not long. The word "French" is not French. The word "German" is not German. The word "hyphenated" is not hyphenated.

These words are not contradictions. They are merely heterological.

[Eodnhoj7]

Words have meaning as they point to experiences, the word nothing has no meaning for nothing is not a thing and a word is a thing and meaning requires things. It is a contradiction.

The word "nothing" is heterological.

It simply does not apply to itself.

It is quite common for words to be heterological. For example, word "long" is not long. The word "French" is not French. The word "German" is not German. The word "hyphenated" is not hyphenated.

These words are not contradictions. They are merely heterological.

Relativisitically speaking it has no meaning while dually pointing to potentiality.

[Fairy]

Great thread starter topic.
Glad to see you here again.


Parmenides ontological argument: If two things were to exist, they’d have to be separated. They can’t be separated by something that exists since that would make them into one thing, therefore something non-existent has to separate them. This, however, is impossible, because how can something that doesn’t exist separate anything? After all, it doesn’t exist. Only one thing can exist, two is impossible in every sense. Change, or difference in any capacity is an illusion.

[Eodnhoj7]

Great thread starter topic.
Glad to see you here again.


Parmenides ontological argument: If two things were to exist, they’d have to be separated. They can’t be separated by something that exists since that would make them into one thing, therefore something non-existent has to separate them. This, however, is impossible, because how can something that doesn’t exist separate anything? After all, it doesn’t exist. Only one thing can exist, two is impossible in every sense. Change, or difference in any capacity is an illusion.

Parmenides is a paradox, if all is one then illusion is truth and the illusion of multiplicity is truth thus monism results in the reality of multiplicity.

[Fairy]

Great thread starter topic.
Glad to see you here again.


Parmenides ontological argument: If two things were to exist, they’d have to be separated. They can’t be separated by something that exists since that would make them into one thing, therefore something non-existent has to separate them. This, however, is impossible, because how can something that doesn’t exist separate anything? After all, it doesn’t exist. Only one thing can exist, two is impossible in every sense. Change, or difference in any capacity is an illusion.

Parmenides is a paradox, if all is one then illusion is truth and the illusion of multiplicity is truth thus monism results in the reality of multiplicity.

And is that why 'multiplicity' can only be a finite system, and never infinite as infinity can never be reached?

[Eodnhoj7]

Great thread starter topic.
Glad to see you here again.


Parmenides ontological argument: If two things were to exist, they’d have to be separated. They can’t be separated by something that exists since that would make them into one thing, therefore something non-existent has to separate them. This, however, is impossible, because how can something that doesn’t exist separate anything? After all, it doesn’t exist. Only one thing can exist, two is impossible in every sense. Change, or difference in any capacity is an illusion.

Parmenides is a paradox, if all is one then illusion is truth and the illusion of multiplicity is truth thus monism results in the reality of multiplicity.

And is that why 'multiplicity' can only be a finite system, and never infinite as infinity can never be reached?

We only observe multiples because of distinction, one thing relative to another, so yes it necessitates a finite quality. As evidenced from the counterpoint of a perfect singularity where no distinctions would occur given there is no comparison existing necessary for for a distinction to occur. A perfect singularity would be nothing.

Now finiteness can have infinite potential, in certain respects it must have infinite potential, for what is finite manifests through a process of change. When change is 'stopped' so it finiteness for change allows comparison and with comparison comes distinction. Change is continuous for we are aware of distinctions through the everpresent now, the everpresent now necessitates an infinite quality within certain degrees. Now there may be a limited potential to a specific form, with form being a continuum of change, but the change of one form into another creates another form and this relationship is an alternating cycle, thus a meta-form thus there is a continual recursion of the quality of potentiality. The recursion of potentiality is cyclical by nature thus is without end, infinite in other terms.

From another aspect we know multiplicity and unity through a relational contrast that necessitates each as distinct and inherently connected. One exist because of other as one is rooted in the other:

Multiplicity observes the unity of the distinction through it.
Unity observes the multiplicity of parts through it.

That might be a little dense, abstractly speaking, so if you need examples just ask.

[Fairy]

First of all, the map ("the word") is not the territory:

The map ''word'' is only an artificially constructed model of the territory. There is no way for the model to access the actual territory because it's silent, and silence will not reveal or know anything.

Meanwhile, the territory known is knowledge, but only as a representational model, and the model is the only thing that can be known. The territory on the other hand is a mystery unto itself, unsolvable, and here's the rub, you are this unsolvable trying to solve itself as and through knowledge, which is impossible, because knowledge is only a model.

All the mind can do is identify with the model representation of it's own subjective creation. In reality, reality shows up as a perfect presentation, never a representation. And yet the mind is also here to show off it's model to itself, the here and never not here simultaneously.

It's the divine paradox. The cosmic joke.

[Fairy]

Parmenides is a paradox, if all is one then illusion is truth and the illusion of multiplicity is truth thus monism results in the reality of multiplicity.

And is that why 'multiplicity' can only be a finite system, and never infinite as infinity can never be reached?

We only observe multiples because of distinction, one thing relative to another, so yes it necessitates a finite quality. As evidenced from the counterpoint of a perfect singularity where no distinctions would occur given there is no comparison existing necessary for for a distinction to occur. A perfect singularity would be nothing.

Now finiteness can have infinite potential, in certain respects it must have infinite potential, for what is finite manifests through a process of change. When change is 'stopped' so it finiteness for change allows comparison and with comparison comes distinction. Change is continuous for we are aware of distinctions through the everpresent now, the everpresent now necessitates an infinite quality within certain degrees. Now there may be a limited potential to a specific form, with form being a continuum of change, but the change of one form into another creates another form and this relationship is an alternating cycle, thus a meta-form thus there is a continual recursion of the quality of potentiality. The recursion of potentiality is cyclical by nature thus is without end, infinite in other terms.

From another aspect we know multiplicity and unity through a relational contrast that necessitates each as distinct and inherently connected. One exist because of other as one is rooted in the other:

Multiplicity observes the unity of the distinction through it.
Unity observes the multiplicity of parts through it.

That might be a little dense, abstractly speaking, so if you need examples just ask.

It's not dense to me, I'm totally reading you. I understand what you are saying, so thanks for the feedback.

[Eodnhoj7]

And is that why 'multiplicity' can only be a finite system, and never infinite as infinity can never be reached?

We only observe multiples because of distinction, one thing relative to another, so yes it necessitates a finite quality. As evidenced from the counterpoint of a perfect singularity where no distinctions would occur given there is no comparison existing necessary for for a distinction to occur. A perfect singularity would be nothing.

Now finiteness can have infinite potential, in certain respects it must have infinite potential, for what is finite manifests through a process of change. When change is 'stopped' so it finiteness for change allows comparison and with comparison comes distinction. Change is continuous for we are aware of distinctions through the everpresent now, the everpresent now necessitates an infinite quality within certain degrees. Now there may be a limited potential to a specific form, with form being a continuum of change, but the change of one form into another creates another form and this relationship is an alternating cycle, thus a meta-form thus there is a continual recursion of the quality of potentiality. The recursion of potentiality is cyclical by nature thus is without end, infinite in other terms.

From another aspect we know multiplicity and unity through a relational contrast that necessitates each as distinct and inherently connected. One exist because of other as one is rooted in the other:

Multiplicity observes the unity of the distinction through it.
Unity observes the multiplicity of parts through it.

That might be a little dense, abstractly speaking, so if you need examples just ask.

It's not dense to me, I'm totally reading you. I understand what you are saying, so thanks for the feedback.

Good, for most it can be dense, apparently your not most.