Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

[Age]

Where would you draw the line between science and metaphysics?

Science seems to be a subset of metaphysics. One cannot do science without first establishing a metaphysical base, all without proof. Sure, science currently (well, until recently) works under methodological naturalism, which is a metaphysical assumption, and an assumption that has proved far more productive than the alternative.

Well, what some people interpret as the failure of philosophy is that no one has succeeded in demonstrating a sound argument. Parmenides and Descartes apart, no one has even come up with a sound premise.

'This', here, is how CLOSED and/or NARROWED some of 'these people' REALLY WERE.

Also, 'this one' BELIEVES, and WILL CLAIM, some things are TRUE, but when others attempt to SHOW and/or PROVE what opposes it's OWN views or BELIEFS, then it WILL BRING UP and CLAIM that ONLY one thing can be proved.

'This one' has, STILL, NOT YET RECIGNIZED AND SEEN the CONTRADICTION and HYPOCRISY, here

In my view, beyond 'there is at least one phenomenon', all philosophy and science is without proof.

I for one, being science minded but not being a scientist, am very interested in the metaphysics and philosophical implications of it all. I don't go around finding new empirical evidence like the scientists are supposed to.

Do you have an opinion on Wigner's The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences?

[Age]

That remarkably toxic mix of naivety and stupidity can't be beat

As the great Bill Murray said: “It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.”

LOL What do you even think or BELIEVE thee is to 'win', here ?

And, what are you even trying to argue FOR, and/or AGAINST, here, EXACTLY?

I am CERTAINLY NOT trying to so-call 'win' ANY thing, here, and I am NOT trying to argue FOR, nor AGAINST, ANY thing, here.

[Cerveny]

That remarkably toxic mix of naivety and stupidity can't be beat :(

As the great Bill Murray said: “It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.”

LOL What do you even think or BELIEVE thee is to 'win', here ?

And, what are you even trying to argue FOR, and/or AGAINST, here, EXACTLY?

I am CERTAINLY NOT trying to so-call 'win' ANY thing, here, and I am NOT trying to argue FOR, nor AGAINST, ANY thing, here.

Until now, I was fundamentally convinced that there could be no infinite values ​​of anything in the real world. But I'm afraid I'll have to reconsider it:(

[Noax]

Well, what some people interpret as the failure of philosophy is that no one has succeeded in demonstrating a sound argument. Parmenides and Descartes apart, no one has even come up with a sound premise. In my view, beyond 'there is at least one phenomenon', all philosophy and science is without proof.

What obligates either (science or philosophy) to come up with proof? It wouldn't be philosophy if proof was to be had, and proof plays no role in what science does.
That said, I will contest your "Parmenides and Descartes apart", and I don't even know which arguments are being referenced. "I think therefore I am" contains premises that cannot be verified and a non-sequitur.

Do you have an opinion on Wigner's The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences?

Sure. Why is it unreasonable? The universe seems mathematical in nature, and that fact gives rise to the MUH by Tegmark, but that hypothesis has some serious problems, perhaps best summarized by the question "why is the mathematics of our universe interesting?". That's a real problem that needs to be solved.

I think it would be more unreasonable if the universe was shown to be occasionally not mathematical.

[Noax]

As the great Bill Murray said: “It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.”

That may have evolved from some quotes attributed to Mark Twain:

"Never argue with a fool, it might be hard to tell which is which"

Certainly true in this case. I cannot tell.
More verified version by Mark Twain:

"Never argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

So in the spirit of being dragged down, I'll add this:

What, REALLY, matters is what can be backed up and supported, FULLY, with ACTUAL PROOF, empirical OR through sound AND valid arguments.

Here, 'we' have ANOTHER ACCUSATION, and CLAIM, from 'this one', now, let 'us' SEE, if 'this one' will back up, support, and CLARIFY "itself", here, this time.

You seem to sink yourself since you never do what you say really matters. None of your claims are in any way backed up or supported. No proof of anything is provided. Not a single sound argument is presented. Not just this post, but pretty much all of them.

On the plus side, you have extensive experience at being the fool and will no doubt leverage that experience in your reply.

[Age]

As the great Bill Murray said: “It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.”

LOL What do you even think or BELIEVE thee is to 'win', here ?

And, what are you even trying to argue FOR, and/or AGAINST, here, EXACTLY?

I am CERTAINLY NOT trying to so-call 'win' ANY thing, here, and I am NOT trying to argue FOR, nor AGAINST, ANY thing, here.

Until now, I was fundamentally convinced that there could be no infinite values ​​of anything in the real world. But I'm afraid I'll have to reconsider it:(

Okay.

[Age]

As the great Bill Murray said: “It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.”

That may have evolved from some quotes attributed to Mark Twain:

"Never argue with a fool, it might be hard to tell which is which"

Certainly true in this case. I cannot tell.

Just like 'we' can ALSO SAY and CLAIM, 'Certainly true in this case, AS WELL'.

More verified version by Mark Twain:

"Never argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

So in the spirit of being dragged down, I'll add this:

you "noax" can ADD absolutely ANY thing you like, but you OBVIOUSLY MISSED WHERE I SAID, and WROTE,

'I am CERTAINLY NOT trying to so-call 'win' ANY thing, here, and I am NOT trying to argue FOR, nor AGAINST, ANY thing, here.'

One could just say that I am just putting 'it' OUT THERE, 'That actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun, and NOT the other way around', for example, and then I just WAIT PATIENTLY for 'those' who are Truly CURIOS, INTERESTED, and OPEN. Hitherto, I AM, STILL, WAITING.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN from you posters, here in this forum, MUCH PREFER to 'TRY TO' ARGUE and FIGHT, FOR "your side" of things, or, AGAINST what I just SAY and CLAIM. RARELY, IF EVER, ANY INQUISITIVENESS is SPARKED UP with you older human beings, here. 'Never the twain shall meet', as some will say, here, now.

I WILL SAY it AGAIN,
The Universe IS eternal and infinite, and therefore did NOT begin and is NOT expanding. Again, as can be and will be PROVED IRREFUTABLY True, empirically AND through and with a sound AND valid argument.

Again, I WAIT FOR those who are INTERESTED and would like to HAVE A DISCUSSION. Until then I will let you people KEEP 'TRYING TO' ARGUE FOR and AGAINST your OWN personal VIEWS and BELIEFS. Which, are AGAIN, PROVING True, for 'me', in regards to what I have ALREADY PARTLY SHOWN and REVEALED ABOUT HOW the brain and the Mind ACTUALLY WORK.

What, REALLY, matters is what can be backed up and supported, FULLY, with ACTUAL PROOF, empirical OR through sound AND valid arguments.

Here, 'we' have ANOTHER ACCUSATION, and CLAIM, from 'this one', now, let 'us' SEE, if 'this one' will back up, support, and CLARIFY "itself", here, this time.

You seem to sink yourself since you never do what you say really matters.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ONCE MORE, I AM WAITING FOR ANY one of you human beings to SHOW ANY REAL INTEREST in WANTING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION IN what I SAY and CLAIM being PROVED TO 'them'.

AGAIN, I AM NOT IN ANY RUSH AT ALL, and as such I JUST WAIT PATIENTLY.

ONCE AGAIN, you posters have PROVED, IRREFUTABLY, that it is A COMPLETE WASTE OF 'time' 'TRYING TO' ARGUE AGAINST you. Thus, the REASON WHY I DO NOT. And, REMEMBER I ALSO DO NOT DO 'debate' NOR 'theories'.

ONLY AFTER I HAVE OBTAINED 'the NECESSARY proof' is WHEN I THEN MAKE the CLAIM.

None of your claims are in any way backed up or supported.

BECAUSE NOT A SINGLE one of you has ASKED ME TO.

I have ALSO LEARNED that it is A COMPLETE and UTTER WASTE TO even just TRY TO PROVE ANY thing opposing ANY one's PRESUMPTIONS or BELIEFS, that is; WHILE you people HAVE, and ARE MAINTAINING, A PRESUMPTION or A BELIEF, then I do NOT even BOTHER. Also, it is A COMPLETE and UTTER WASTE TO HAVE 'philosophical discussion' UNTIL the DEFINITION each one HAS, for 'the words' being USED IN 'the discussion' are CLARIFIED, and KNOWN, AGREED UPON, and ACCEPTED.

AGAIN, I WAIT FOR 'those' who ARE Open and Honest, and Want to HAVE A DISCUSSION.

See, to me, 'philosophical discussions' involve 'arguing', which, to me, MEANS and REFERS TO 'logical reasoning' IN DISCUSSIONS, WHERE ACTUAL 'sound AND valid arguments' ARE FORMED, in conjunction WITH others.

There are ALSO NO "sides", where 'we' are 'TRYING TO' 'win' ANY thing. The ONLY thing that IS 'won' through 'the discussions' that I am talking ABOUT, REFERRING TO, and WANTING is that each one WITHIN the discussion LEARNS MORE, and thus BECOMES WISER.

But, 'you' can keep DOING 'you' for as long as you WANT. AGAIN, 'I' DO 'Me', and 'I' am CERTAINLY NOT IN ANY RUSH, HERE, AT ALL.

No proof of anything is provided.

Have you EVER ASKED FOR ANY?

If no, then 'this' SHOWS and PROVES that you HAVE pre-existing BELIEFS, or ASSUMPTIONS, as well as NO INTEREST in SEEKING OUT and OBTAINING ANY.

you MUCH PREFER TO FIGHT FOR your ALREADY OBTAINED and PRE-EXISTING VIEWS and/or FIGHT AGAINST 'another's'.

However, if you have EVER ASKED FOR 'me' to PROVIDE 'you' WITH ANY PROOF, then WHERE and WHEN, EXACTLY?

Not a single sound argument is presented.

ONCE MORE, it is A COMPLETE WASTE TO PRESENT EVEN A 'sound AND valid argument' to ANY one WITH AN OPPOSING VIEW, PRESUMPTION, and/or BELIEF.

See, you people will NOT even just 'LOOK AT', let alone ACCEPT, even ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE PROOF, whether in empirical form, or in a sound AND valid argument WHILST you are BELIEVING the OPPOSITE.

This forum is RIDDLED with ABSOLUTE PRIME examples of 'this phenomena', let alone the REST OF 'human history', outside of this forum.

Not just this post, but pretty much all of them.

LOL
LOL
LOL

you SAY 'this' as though you have PRESENTED MANY or ANY 'sound argument' "yourself", here.

On the plus side, you have extensive experience at being the fool and will no doubt leverage that experience in your reply.

LOL 'no doubt'.

If 'you' could ONLY SEE what 'I' AM 'LOOKING AT', and 'SEEING, here.

ONCE MORE FOR the EXTREMELY SLOW OF LEARNING, I PRESENT MY CLAIMS, IN 'A WAY', which WILL CAUSE 'you' posters, here, TO REACT IN
PARTICULAR WAYS'.

Now, AGAIN, the Universe could NOT and did NOT begin and is could NOT and is NOT expanding, which has ALREADY BEEN PROVED, and can BE and will BE PROVED TO others if and WHEN they are Truly CURIOS and INTERESTED. For the 'rest of you' 'I' LEAVE 'you' IN and WITH your OWN personal BELIEFS, and VIEWS.

[Cerveny]

LOL What do you even think or BELIEVE thee is to 'win', here ?

And, what are you even trying to argue FOR, and/or AGAINST, here, EXACTLY?

I am CERTAINLY NOT trying to so-call 'win' ANY thing, here, and I am NOT trying to argue FOR, nor AGAINST, ANY thing, here.

Until now, I was fundamentally convinced that there could be no infinite values ​​of anything in the real world. But I'm afraid I'll have to reconsider it:(

Okay.

You have profiled yourself here, with apologies, as an 'infinite' idiot. You will probably demand IRREFUTABLE PROOF again. The proof is that you are not aware of it. Sorry, I really hate to write this, but you are not giving me a choice :(

[Age]

Until now, I was fundamentally convinced that there could be no infinite values ​​of anything in the real world. But I'm afraid I'll have to reconsider it:(

Okay.

You have profiled yourself here, with apologies, as an 'infinite' idiot.

WHY 'apologize' for what are just your OWN views and opinions, only?

Also, what even is a so-called 'infinite idiot', EXACTLY?

You will probably demand IRREFUTABLE PROOF again.

I WILL, probably,, LAUGHINGLY, 'demand' proof FOR 'what', EXACTLY?

ALSO, and by the way, I HAVE NEVER EVER 'demanded' ANY thing from ANY one, here.

And, WaHY did you ASSUME what you, OBVIOUSLY, have, here?

The proof is that you are not aware of it.

That most, if not ALL, of you posters,here, may well VIEW 'me' as an "idiot" has NEVER GONE UNNOTICED.

SO, what you are 'now' 'TRYING TO' SAY and CLAIM, IS NOT REALLY WORKING OUT, AT ALL, FOR you, AS WELL.

Sorry, I really hate to write this, but you are not giving me a choice

WHY would you HATE just expressing your OWN VIEWS and BELIEFS FOR, EXACTLY?

Also, HOW did 'I' END UP HAVING SO MUCH CONTROL OVER 'you'.

Now, BACK TO what 'we' were talking ABOUT and DISCUSSING, BECAUSE you are FUNDAMENTALLY CONVINCED that there could be NO 'infinite values' of ANY thing, which OBVIOUSLY INCLUDES the Universe, Itself. you are NOT OPEN TO the IRREFUTABLE Fact' that the UNIVERSE IS infinite, AND eternal.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, what some people interpret as the failure of philosophy is that no one has succeeded in demonstrating a sound argument. Parmenides and Descartes apart, no one has even come up with a sound premise. In my view, beyond 'there is at least one phenomenon', all philosophy and science is without proof.

What obligates either (science or philosophy) to come up with proof?

Well, in my view science is pragmatic and philosophy creative. So, nothing. There have been rationalists who have attempted to use logic to 'prove' things about the world; Descartes, for instance, was inspired by the proofs in Euclid to try something similar with language.

It wouldn't be philosophy if proof was to be had, and proof plays no role in what science does.

We agree on that then.

That said, I will contest your "Parmenides and Descartes apart", and I don't even know which arguments are being referenced. "I think therefore I am" contains premises that cannot be verified and a non-sequitur.

Long story short, Parmenides's maxim can be reduced to 'something exists'. Descartes's 'I think, therefore I am' can be boiled down to 'experience exists'. What makes them proofs is that they can't be expressed without being true. To make any sort of argument though, you need at least two premises, which is where the wheels came off. In Parmenides's case he reasoned that since something exists, nothing cannot exist; essentially he took a materialist perspective and deduced from the claim that matter exists, void cannot exist. Descartes's project was going nowhere until he shoehorned God into his equation using a dodgy ontological argument.

Do you have an opinion on Wigner's The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences?

Sure. Why is it unreasonable? The universe seems mathematical in nature, and that fact gives rise to the MUH by Tegmark, but that hypothesis has some serious problems, perhaps best summarized by the question "why is the mathematics of our universe interesting?". That's a real problem that needs to be solved.

I think it would be more unreasonable if the universe was shown to be occasionally not mathematical.

I'm not a mathematician, but a long time ago, when I was being taught maths, it was broken down into pure and applied. That left me with the impression that while there is some maths that is true independent of reality, when it comes to reality, you can pretty much make up different maths to describe the same reality, leaving maths as underdetermined as everything else.

[Impenitent]

what people forget is that mathematics is nothing but language

-Imp

[Noax]

Long story short, Parmenides's maxim can be reduced to 'something exists'. Descartes's 'I think, therefore I am' can be boiled down to 'experience exists'.

Do either of them define 'exists'? I ask because as worded, I don't accept the premises that they do, hence I conclude nothing of the kind. There certainly is no proof of either statement. Is there a way to falsify a non-realist stance without begging the same premises that those two do?

In Parmenides's case he reasoned that since something exists, nothing cannot exist, essentially he took a materialist perspective and deduced from the claim that matter exists, void cannot exist.

That is very much begging the conclusion you summarized above. It is the opening line.
For the record, a non-realist view is not that 'void' exists. That would I think be nihilism, a realist position that there is existence, and it is empty.

I take more of a relational view. 'Something relates to something else', sort of like 6 is less than 9. Neither of those needs to exist for 6 < 9 to be the case.

I'm not a mathematician, but a long time ago, when I was being taught maths, it was broken down into pure and applied. That left me with the impression that while there is some maths that is true independent of reality, when it comes to reality, you can pretty much make up different maths to describe the same reality, leaving maths as underdetermined as everything else.

What, real maths and maths that works for us? Even pure maths seems to require a foundation of axioms, which it arguably shouldn't if it is to be fundamental.

[Age]

Well, what some people interpret as the failure of philosophy is that no one has succeeded in demonstrating a sound argument. Parmenides and Descartes apart, no one has even come up with a sound premise. In my view, beyond 'there is at least one phenomenon', all philosophy and science is without proof.

What obligates either (science or philosophy) to come up with proof?

Well, in my view science is pragmatic and philosophy creative. So, nothing. There have been rationalists who have attempted to use logic to 'prove' things about the world; Descartes, for instance, was inspired by the proofs in Euclid to try something similar with language.

It wouldn't be philosophy if proof was to be had, and proof plays no role in what science does.

We agree on that then.

That said, I will contest your "Parmenides and Descartes apart", and I don't even know which arguments are being referenced. "I think therefore I am" contains premises that cannot be verified and a non-sequitur.

Long story short, Parmenides's maxim can be reduced to 'something exists'. Descartes's 'I think, therefore I am' can be boiled down to 'experience exists'. What makes them proofs is that they can't be expressed without being true. To make any sort of argument though, you need at least two premises, which is where the wheels came off.

Either 'this' is also some thing that can not be expressed without being true, or, 'this' is just 'an opinion' by one thing, which thinks, and exists.

So, which one is it, EXACTLY?

In Parmenides's case he reasoned that since something exists, nothing cannot exist; essentially he took a materialist perspective and deduced from the claim that matter exists, void cannot exist.

Well this is OBVIOUSLY A VERY CLOSED and "one-sided", ONLY, perspective of things, which is OBVIOUSLY A VERY ILLOGICAL, UNREASONABLE, and/or IRRATIONAL WAY to LOOK AT, VIEW, and SEE, things.

So, WHY, EXACTLY, are you EXPRESSING and SHOWING ANOTHER Wrong WAY of OBTAINING VIEWS, and/or KNOWLEDGE, here?

Descartes's project was going nowhere until he shoehorned God into his equation using a dodgy ontological argument.

Once again, what 'we' can VERY CLEARLY SEE, here, is 'another one' just 'TRYING' its HARDEST to FIGHT and ARGUE FOR its OWN 'current'y HELD ONTO BELIEFS.

Do you have an opinion on Wigner's The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences?

Sure. Why is it unreasonable? The universe seems mathematical in nature, and that fact gives rise to the MUH by Tegmark, but that hypothesis has some serious problems, perhaps best summarized by the question "why is the mathematics of our universe interesting?". That's a real problem that needs to be solved.

I think it would be more unreasonable if the universe was shown to be occasionally not mathematical.

I'm not a mathematician, but a long time ago, when I was being taught maths, it was broken down into pure and applied. That left me with the impression that while there is some maths that is true independent of reality, when it comes to reality, you can pretty much make up different maths to describe the same reality, leaving maths as underdetermined as everything else.

[Age]

Long story short, Parmenides's maxim can be reduced to 'something exists'. Descartes's 'I think, therefore I am' can be boiled down to 'experience exists'.

Do either of them define 'exists'? I ask because as worded, I don't accept the premises that they do, hence I conclude nothing of the kind. There certainly is no proof of either statement.

Talk ABOUT PRESENTING ANOTHER PRIME example OF the ABSOLUTE OBVIOUS being COMPLETELY MISSED, here.

HOW could 'you' EXISTING, here, NOT BE 'ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF' OF 'Existence', Itself?

In other words, HOW COULD AN EXISTING 'thing' even BEGIN TO GO ABOUT DISPROVING, or REFUTING, 'Existence', Itself?

PROVE TO 'the readers', here, that 'you' ARE NOT EXISTING, when 'you' ARE WRITING, here.

And/or EXPLAIN HOW an EXISTING 'thing', itself, could NOT have 'Existence', Itself, PROVED TO 'it'.

Is there a way to falsify a non-realist stance without begging the same premises that those two do?

In Parmenides's case he reasoned that since something exists, nothing cannot exist, essentially he took a materialist perspective and deduced from the claim that matter exists, void cannot exist.

That is very much begging the conclusion you summarized above.

VERY, VERY True.

Just BECAUSE some 'thing', exists, that in NO WAY AT ALL means that INFINITELY IN ALL DIRECTIONS EVERY 'thing' IS that ONE 'something'.

Also, FIRSTLY just HAVING A so-called 'materialistic perspective' IS, OBVIOUSLY, GOING TO SKEW, DISTORT, BLIND, or COERCE HOW 'that one' LOOKS AT, VIEWS, and thus ULTIMATELY SEES 'things'.

What 'that one human being', named "parmenides", did would be like having so-called 'reasoned' that since something exists, God can exist, essentially having taken a "creationist perspective", and then deducing, from the claim that something exists, God MUST exist.

Putting one's OWN BELIEFS BEFORE STARTING OUT ANY 'reasoning' AT ALL, will ALWAYS END UP PREVENTING and/or BLOCKING the ACTUAL Truth FROM 'coming-to-light'.

If one has so-called 'reasoned', 'something exists, therefore nothing can exist', FIRST, then, OF COURSE, 'that one' is GOING TO DEDUCE, from 'that claim', 'void cannot exist'.

There is absolutely NOTHING LOGICAL NOR REASONED IN 'this CONCLUSION'.

What was just SHOWED and PRESENTED, here, is ANOTHER GREAT example of WHY it REALLY IS Truly IMPORTANT to RID "oneself" of EVERY PRE-EXISTING ASSUMPTION or VIEW, and EVERY 'current' BELIEF WHEN one is REALLY WANTING TO LEARN, and DISCOVER, MORE, or ANEW.

It is the opening line.
For the record, a non-realist view is not that 'void' exists. That would I think be nihilism, a realist position that there is existence, and it is empty.

WHY do you HAVE such A NARROWED and/or CLOSED view and perspective of 'things', here?

I take more of a relational view. 'Something relates to something else',

Well ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' IS RELATIVE TO, (or relates to, if you like), 'the OBSERVER', right?

sort of like 6 is less than 9. Neither of those needs to exist for 6 < 9 to be the case.

When you SAY, 'Neither of 'those' needs to exist for ...', what is the 'those' word REFERRING, or RELATING, TO, EXACTLY?

If 'that word' is relating to the 'nihilism' and 'realist' words, then 'those two words' OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT NEEDED, as 'those two words' do NOT even RELATE TO ANY ACTUAL 'things', ANYWAY.

I'm not a mathematician, but a long time ago, when I was being taught maths, it was broken down into pure and applied. That left me with the impression that while there is some maths that is true independent of reality, when it comes to reality, you can pretty much make up different maths to describe the same reality, leaving maths as underdetermined as everything else.

What, real maths and maths that works for us? Even pure maths seems to require a foundation of axioms, which it arguably shouldn't if it is to be fundamental.

There ARE ONLY TWO 'fundamental' 'things' in the Universe. And, ONCE one KNOWS what 'they' ARE and HOW WORK, TOGETHER, EXACTLY, then the ANSWERS OF ALL OF these ABSOLUTELY 'TRIVIAL things', which have been talked ABOUT and DISCUSSED, here, BECOME ALSO KNOWN, and KNOWN ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY, as well, I WILL ADD.

[Will Bouwman]

Long story short, Parmenides's maxim can be reduced to 'something exists'. Descartes's 'I think, therefore I am' can be boiled down to 'experience exists'.

Do either of them define 'exists'? I ask because as worded, I don't accept the premises that they do, hence I conclude nothing of the kind. There certainly is no proof of either statement.

Well, you can do the Kantian 'existence is not a predicate' thing and strip them back to something and thinking. Their strength is not so much that they are true, rather that their negation, nothing and no thinking, are self refuting.