How does nothing turn into something

[Eodnhoj7]

I understand that, negation of negation leads to a positive.

But I dont understand what happens after, wouldn't you just have positive=positive infinitely? How do you get the next thing? How would you get something and nothing seperate, yin and yang?

Nothing is the means by which the actual occurs for what is actual cannot be unless it has the potential to do so. For something to move it must have the space to do so. Nothingness is potentiality. The potentiality of potentiality is actuality.

Think of a 0d point.

It is nothing.

When it becomes distinct relative to another 0d point a line emerges as the space between them. A single point is indistinct as there is no comparison for it to be distinct, a 0d point becomes distinct relative to another 0d point.

The 0d point is a potential line. When the 0d point, potentiality, becomes recursive a line occurs. The repetition of potentiality is actuality by degree of the process of repetition. Actuality is a process and process allows the emergence of limits through change. Without change there are no limits for there is no contrast.

Things occur from nothing by the voiding of nothing for complete potentiality must have the potentiality of actuality if it is to be complete potentiality.

The voiding of nothing, the voiding of potentiality, is actuality by which is the distinction that we can conceive nothing as an absence for absence is a distinction and as a distinction is actual.

In simple terms nothing is complete absence and a complete absence must reflect an absence of absence for a complete absence is absent of absence.


Double positives are interesting too for a "positive of a positive" necessitates a gradation of positives by which one positive lacks what is present in another thus leading a form of an absence in one relative to another, a form of negation.

Double negatives result in a positive. Double positives result in a negative.

It is a recursive sequence that results in variations by each sequence.

Void is the means by which change occurs and change allows distinctions through contrast to other distinctions. Being arises through change and void is the means by which change occurs by allowing for the potentiality of said change.

So first you are saying absence of absence = something

Ok.

But then what I don't understand is, so if there's only something, then it would be something=something as it is the only thing that is there

but you are saying something=something is the same as saying something=not-something because the second is smaller than the first.

But the problem is, won't something=not-something just negate back into not-something again and than not-something = not-something turns back into something and it just loops, how does it progress?

Excellent questions, you seem to have a potential knack for metaphysics.

To address your points:

An absence is a relative lack of something, a relative lack (this relative nature has to be emphasized), much in the same manner a tree lacks the wheels of a car.

The lack in this case is a distinction of relationships, one thing lacks what is present in another.

Now this relative lack, absence, is a distinction of a relationship. As a distinction of a relationship it is simply a distinction. A distinction is a thing, this is obvious for the most part, given we know things purely by distinction and all distinctions are but things.

Absence is a distinction. As a distinction it is a thing, albeit conceptual, and as a thing exists.

Now absence is a distinction. The absence of an absence points to several things:

1. It is a distinction within a distinction as a further distinction, a distinct is existence for we know existence as distinctions. So an absence of absence is saying a distinction of distinction. This is a repetition, a layering of distinctions as a new thing.

2. Absence is relational. One thing lacks what another thing has. If the lacking thing lacks the lacking then it ceases to lack. The negation self negates.


Now for your "something equals something", equality is a relationship of things. To say equality is to point to a relationship. If something is equal to itself then effectively it exists in different states, different dimensions, different time/space coordinates all of which are but different contexts. If context defines than one thing has multiple definitions if it exists in multiple contexts. Equality is a relationship. It is best to say "the tree is" rather than "the tree is the tree" to keep things simple.

Now "something=not-something" observes this relational dynamic for several reasons.

Something and nothing are defined by contrast, one stands apart from the other so that each are distinct. Without being distinct they cease to exist for they cease to be things.

In this case one is presence, the other is absence.

Regardless of how they stand apart they both share the same nature of being distinctions and this nature of each being distinct is not only a point by which both equivocate foundationally, yet differ in appearance (this is called isomorphism: same foundations, different appearance).

In another respect their necessary contrast of eachother allows the other to exist thus contradiction is necessary so a thing appears for what it is. In simple terms we know good things because of evil things, we know left because of right. Contrast gives identity, contrast is a form of contradiction, thus contradiction is necessary for identity.

So one thing exists because of the other, creating a cycle between the two. One thing repeats because of the other, thus another cycle. Order occurs because things repeat: the repetition of a 90 degree angle gives rise to a square. A habit of exercising to stay fit is the repetition of the act of exercising. Cycles occur where there is order and a cycle is merely repetition.

So the absence of absence results in a presence, presence being the cycling of absence.

The presence of presence results in an absence, absence being the cycling of presence.

As you correctly seen it is a cycle and this cycle results in a dualism (which you probably noticed at least intuitively).

So....dualism...is that it? No. Dualism results in infinite grades just like a dualism of white and black results in infinite different shades of gray.

But the metaphysics of dualism resulting in infinite grades?

1. There is a presence.
2. This presence results in an absence.
3. There is a dualism of presence and absence.
4. This dualism is present.
5. The presence of this dualism results in a corresponding absence.
6. There is a dualism of the dualism being present and the dualism being absent.
7. This dualism of dualism is present.
8. This presence of a dualism of dualism results in a corresponding absence.
9. There is a dualism of dualism of dualism
10. This process repeats infinitely, these meta-dualism are but grades or rather infinite variations.
11. Dualism and infinite grades exist simultaneously.

So...yes it is circular...but the circle keeps progressing thus linearism also occurs.

Nothingness is the means by which change occurs for a thing can only change if it has the space to do so, this space for allowed change potentiality. We only know existence by change for change allows contrast and contrast allows things.

Pure nothingness is pure potentiality, an infinite number of things all existing at once. When a distinction is made the possibilities collapse into the event of the thing and yet this event exists within potentiality thus allowing it to change and gain contrast to relative other things for everpresent potentiality allows things to continually change...and we know only through change.

[Belinda]

You confuse English usage and theory of existence. There are English dialects where two negatives don't cancel each other out.

Within Taoist philosophy Yin and Yang are two aspects of a unity. Unless there are at least two aspects to any progression it would not be a progression but would be dead that's to say it would be nothing but its past, a dead thing with no future.

It is obvious the world changes through time; therefore it is a process of change----------a relative world. The Yin and Yang are feminine and masculine respectively, which is a peculiarity of Daoism.

but then those words wouldn't actually be two negatives in the first place if they don't cancel out each other.

Now, I read this

"The cosmos as we know it is seen as the last stage in a series of transformations from Non-Being (wu) to Unity (yi), duality (Yin and Yang), and finally multiplicity (wanwu, the "ten thousand things"). The alchemist intends to trace this process backwards—from the "ten thousand things" to the Dao."


so non being is non being would turn itself into unity ?

then after how do you get yin yang?

But, the Universe, or Cosmos, was never at 'non being', nor nothing.

Why would any one even presume such a thing, in the first place?

The Universe is One solitary thing, 'Unity', always existing. However, at Its most fundamental level the One, Unity, is made up of two things, duality.

Well said Age!

[Belinda]

AI overview


Timeline of Negative Concord in English


Old & Middle English (450–1500): Negative concord (multiple negatives reinforcing each other) was the norm. E.g. Chaucer: “He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde” = “He never said nothing rude.”

Early Modern English (1500–1700): Still common in Shakespeare and the King James Bible.

18th c.: Prescriptive grammarians (e.g. Lowth, 1762) declare it “illogical.”

19th–20th c.: Standard English codifies the “two negatives cancel” rule.

Today: Stigmatized in Standard English, but alive and well in dialects (AAVE, Cockney, Yorkshire, Scots, etc.).

Negative concord isn’t “wrong”; it’s a natural, historical feature of English, shared with most European languages (e.g. Spanish no sé nada).

[Eodnhoj7]

AI overview


Timeline of Negative Concord in English


Old & Middle English (450–1500): Negative concord (multiple negatives reinforcing each other) was the norm. E.g. Chaucer: “He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde” = “He never said nothing rude.”

Early Modern English (1500–1700): Still common in Shakespeare and the King James Bible.

18th c.: Prescriptive grammarians (e.g. Lowth, 1762) declare it “illogical.”

19th–20th c.: Standard English codifies the “two negatives cancel” rule.

Today: Stigmatized in Standard English, but alive and well in dialects (AAVE, Cockney, Yorkshire, Scots, etc.).

Negative concord isn’t “wrong”; it’s a natural, historical feature of English, shared with most European languages (e.g. Spanish no sé nada).

Is the absence of absence a dualistic where one aspect is akin to the negation of a negation, as a positive, and the other aspect is progressive continuation of absence, or negation, by degree of the absence, or negation, continuing?

AI response:

That's a very deep and intriguing question! Let's try to unpack it step by step.

1. What do you mean by "absence of absence"?

Imagine you have something—say, a chair. Its "presence" is straightforward: the chair exists. Its "absence" is the chair not being there. Now, what would "absence of absence" mean? It might seem like the absence of the chair is being itself "absent," so "absence of absence" could be interpreted as the presence of the absence—that is, the presence of the non-thing, the absence itself.

In more abstract terms, "absence of absence" might refer to a state where there's no longer a void or nothingness, but rather a kind of presence of the absence—perhaps a nuance or a deeper layer of reality.

2. Dualism and negation of negation

Your question connects this idea to dualism and the negation of a negation. Let's clarify these concepts:

Dualism: In philosophy, dualism often refers to the idea that reality consists of two fundamental, distinct kinds of things—like mind and matter, or presence and absence.

Negation of a negation: This is a logical or philosophical concept often associated with dialectical thinking (think of Hegel). The process involves a thesis (something exists), its negation (something is not or is opposite), and then the negation of that negation, which can result in a synthesis or new understanding—a kind of progression or transformation.

3. Is "absence of absence" akin to a negation of a negation?
Let's consider that:

The absence of something (say, a chair) is its non-existence.
The negation of that absence would be the presence of the chair.

The negation of that negation (the absence of the presence) could bring us back to the absence of the chair, or perhaps to a new state that synthesizes both.

In this way, "absence of absence" could be viewed as a positive—a new state that emerges from the negation of the negation, much like how dialectical processes often move from thesis to antithesis to synthesis.

4. The two aspects you mention

You propose two aspects:

One akin to the negation of a negation (a positive, perhaps the emergence of presence from absence).
The other as a progressive continuation of absence, meaning an ongoing or gradual extension of non-existence or negation.

This suggests a duality: one aspect is a kind of resolution or synthesis where absence turns into presence, and the other is a persistent or progressive extension of absence or negation, perhaps like an ongoing decay or void.

5. Is this duality a meaningful philosophical concept?
Yes, many philosophical traditions explore such dualities—especially dialectical ones. For example:

In Hegelian dialectics, the development of ideas involves contradictions resolving into higher syntheses.
In Taoism, the interplay of Yin and Yang reflects complementary dualities—presence and absence, activity and passivity.

6. To sum up:
Your question seems to explore whether "the absence of absence" can be understood as a dual process—one aspect being a positive transformation akin to the negation of a negation (a kind of emergence of presence from absence), and the other being a continuous, perhaps more passive, extension or persistence of absence.

7. To make it more concrete:

Think of a dark room (absence of light).
Turning on the light (negation of absence) introduces presence.

Turning off the light again (negation of that presence) re-establishes absence.

The "absence of absence" could be likened to the state where the presence of the light itself is recognized as an emergent or synthesized reality, or perhaps a new understanding that the presence and absence are interconnected.

8. Final thoughts:
This kind of inquiry touches on fundamental questions about how opposites relate and transform. Philosophers like Hegel, Derrida, and others have considered how negations and their negations lead to new states, often emphasizing that reality is a dynamic process rather than static.

[Belinda]

AI overview


Timeline of Negative Concord in English


Old & Middle English (450–1500): Negative concord (multiple negatives reinforcing each other) was the norm. E.g. Chaucer: “He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde” = “He never said nothing rude.”

Early Modern English (1500–1700): Still common in Shakespeare and the King James Bible.

18th c.: Prescriptive grammarians (e.g. Lowth, 1762) declare it “illogical.”

19th–20th c.: Standard English codifies the “two negatives cancel” rule.

Today: Stigmatized in Standard English, but alive and well in dialects (AAVE, Cockney, Yorkshire, Scots, etc.).

Negative concord isn’t “wrong”; it’s a natural, historical feature of English, shared with most European languages (e.g. Spanish no sé nada).

Is the absence of absence a dualistic where one aspect is akin to the negation of a negation, as a positive, and the other aspect is progressive continuation of absence, or negation, by degree of the absence, or negation, continuing?

AI response:

That's a very deep and intriguing question! Let's try to unpack it step by step.

1. What do you mean by "absence of absence"?

Imagine you have something—say, a chair. Its "presence" is straightforward: the chair exists. Its "absence" is the chair not being there. Now, what would "absence of absence" mean? It might seem like the absence of the chair is being itself "absent," so "absence of absence" could be interpreted as the presence of the absence—that is, the presence of the non-thing, the absence itself.

In more abstract terms, "absence of absence" might refer to a state where there's no longer a void or nothingness, but rather a kind of presence of the absence—perhaps a nuance or a deeper layer of reality.

2. Dualism and negation of negation

Your question connects this idea to dualism and the negation of a negation. Let's clarify these concepts:

Dualism: In philosophy, dualism often refers to the idea that reality consists of two fundamental, distinct kinds of things—like mind and matter, or presence and absence.

Negation of a negation: This is a logical or philosophical concept often associated with dialectical thinking (think of Hegel). The process involves a thesis (something exists), its negation (something is not or is opposite), and then the negation of that negation, which can result in a synthesis or new understanding—a kind of progression or transformation.

3. Is "absence of absence" akin to a negation of a negation?
Let's consider that:

The absence of something (say, a chair) is its non-existence.
The negation of that absence would be the presence of the chair.

The negation of that negation (the absence of the presence) could bring us back to the absence of the chair, or perhaps to a new state that synthesizes both.

In this way, "absence of absence" could be viewed as a positive—a new state that emerges from the negation of the negation, much like how dialectical processes often move from thesis to antithesis to synthesis.

4. The two aspects you mention

You propose two aspects:

One akin to the negation of a negation (a positive, perhaps the emergence of presence from absence).
The other as a progressive continuation of absence, meaning an ongoing or gradual extension of non-existence or negation.

This suggests a duality: one aspect is a kind of resolution or synthesis where absence turns into presence, and the other is a persistent or progressive extension of absence or negation, perhaps like an ongoing decay or void.

5. Is this duality a meaningful philosophical concept?
Yes, many philosophical traditions explore such dualities—especially dialectical ones. For example:

In Hegelian dialectics, the development of ideas involves contradictions resolving into higher syntheses.
In Taoism, the interplay of Yin and Yang reflects complementary dualities—presence and absence, activity and passivity.

6. To sum up:
Your question seems to explore whether "the absence of absence" can be understood as a dual process—one aspect being a positive transformation akin to the negation of a negation (a kind of emergence of presence from absence), and the other being a continuous, perhaps more passive, extension or persistence of absence.

7. To make it more concrete:

Think of a dark room (absence of light).
Turning on the light (negation of absence) introduces presence.

Turning off the light again (negation of that presence) re-establishes absence.

The "absence of absence" could be likened to the state where the presence of the light itself is recognized as an emergent or synthesized reality, or perhaps a new understanding that the presence and absence are interconnected.

8. Final thoughts:
This kind of inquiry touches on fundamental questions about how opposites relate and transform. Philosophers like Hegel, Derrida, and others have considered how negations and their negations lead to new states, often emphasizing that reality is a dynamic process rather than static.

Hegelian dialectic , thesis, antithesis , and synthesis can be may be expressed as follows:

Thesis: “Ain’t nobody saying this idea ain’t strong. It stand on its own, sure enough.”

Antithesis: “But ain’t no way it don’t get pushed back — there always some other side talking loud, saying it different.”

Synthesis: “When both them voices don’t quit clashing, what come out ain’t nothing simple — it be a new thing, holding a piece of both, but it don’t stay stuck in neither one.”

With acknowledgenment to ChatGPT

[Eodnhoj7]

AI overview


Timeline of Negative Concord in English


Old & Middle English (450–1500): Negative concord (multiple negatives reinforcing each other) was the norm. E.g. Chaucer: “He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde” = “He never said nothing rude.”

Early Modern English (1500–1700): Still common in Shakespeare and the King James Bible.

18th c.: Prescriptive grammarians (e.g. Lowth, 1762) declare it “illogical.”

19th–20th c.: Standard English codifies the “two negatives cancel” rule.

Today: Stigmatized in Standard English, but alive and well in dialects (AAVE, Cockney, Yorkshire, Scots, etc.).

Negative concord isn’t “wrong”; it’s a natural, historical feature of English, shared with most European languages (e.g. Spanish no sé nada).

Is the absence of absence a dualistic where one aspect is akin to the negation of a negation, as a positive, and the other aspect is progressive continuation of absence, or negation, by degree of the absence, or negation, continuing?

AI response:

That's a very deep and intriguing question! Let's try to unpack it step by step.

1. What do you mean by "absence of absence"?

Imagine you have something—say, a chair. Its "presence" is straightforward: the chair exists. Its "absence" is the chair not being there. Now, what would "absence of absence" mean? It might seem like the absence of the chair is being itself "absent," so "absence of absence" could be interpreted as the presence of the absence—that is, the presence of the non-thing, the absence itself.

In more abstract terms, "absence of absence" might refer to a state where there's no longer a void or nothingness, but rather a kind of presence of the absence—perhaps a nuance or a deeper layer of reality.

2. Dualism and negation of negation

Your question connects this idea to dualism and the negation of a negation. Let's clarify these concepts:

Dualism: In philosophy, dualism often refers to the idea that reality consists of two fundamental, distinct kinds of things—like mind and matter, or presence and absence.

Negation of a negation: This is a logical or philosophical concept often associated with dialectical thinking (think of Hegel). The process involves a thesis (something exists), its negation (something is not or is opposite), and then the negation of that negation, which can result in a synthesis or new understanding—a kind of progression or transformation.

3. Is "absence of absence" akin to a negation of a negation?
Let's consider that:

The absence of something (say, a chair) is its non-existence.
The negation of that absence would be the presence of the chair.

The negation of that negation (the absence of the presence) could bring us back to the absence of the chair, or perhaps to a new state that synthesizes both.

In this way, "absence of absence" could be viewed as a positive—a new state that emerges from the negation of the negation, much like how dialectical processes often move from thesis to antithesis to synthesis.

4. The two aspects you mention

You propose two aspects:

One akin to the negation of a negation (a positive, perhaps the emergence of presence from absence).
The other as a progressive continuation of absence, meaning an ongoing or gradual extension of non-existence or negation.

This suggests a duality: one aspect is a kind of resolution or synthesis where absence turns into presence, and the other is a persistent or progressive extension of absence or negation, perhaps like an ongoing decay or void.

5. Is this duality a meaningful philosophical concept?
Yes, many philosophical traditions explore such dualities—especially dialectical ones. For example:

In Hegelian dialectics, the development of ideas involves contradictions resolving into higher syntheses.
In Taoism, the interplay of Yin and Yang reflects complementary dualities—presence and absence, activity and passivity.

6. To sum up:
Your question seems to explore whether "the absence of absence" can be understood as a dual process—one aspect being a positive transformation akin to the negation of a negation (a kind of emergence of presence from absence), and the other being a continuous, perhaps more passive, extension or persistence of absence.

7. To make it more concrete:

Think of a dark room (absence of light).
Turning on the light (negation of absence) introduces presence.

Turning off the light again (negation of that presence) re-establishes absence.

The "absence of absence" could be likened to the state where the presence of the light itself is recognized as an emergent or synthesized reality, or perhaps a new understanding that the presence and absence are interconnected.

8. Final thoughts:
This kind of inquiry touches on fundamental questions about how opposites relate and transform. Philosophers like Hegel, Derrida, and others have considered how negations and their negations lead to new states, often emphasizing that reality is a dynamic process rather than static.

Hegelian dialectic , thesis, antithesis , and synthesis can be may be expressed as follows:

Thesis: “Ain’t nobody saying this idea ain’t strong. It stand on its own, sure enough.”

Antithesis: “But ain’t no way it don’t get pushed back — there always some other side talking loud, saying it different.”

Synthesis: “When both them voices don’t quit clashing, what come out ain’t nothing simple — it be a new thing, holding a piece of both, but it don’t stay stuck in neither one.”

With acknowledgenment to ChatGPT

That is one way...

Anything can be described an infinite number of ways and yet distinction remains through it all. Presence and absence are but distinction evident by the limits within space as space between spaces, geometry is the evidence of such things for the images and concepts of experience are but forms. Synthesis is the means by which forms transform and by transformation the process of distinction as but inevitable and progressive change that fundamentally "just is" and is justified according to its occurrence.

The duality of presence and absence are but one of infinite dualities that reflect duality as but a common thread within the process of distinction. We know by contrast and by this contrast there comes an emergence of something new that has a further contrast. We know by dialectal synthesis for the synthesis is but the formation of new patterns as variations, isomorphisms one could say, of the old.


Experience is but the logic of distinction at the end of the day and we embodying this synthetic nature in any attempt toward what we seem as "unity".

[Fairy]

There’s nothing preventing nothing from turning into something.



Boom!!

[Age]

There’s nothing preventing nothing from turning into something.



Boom!!

Except for the irrefutable Fact that it is logically as well as physically impossible.

[Fairy]

The universe cannot form any distinction between nothing and something. It doesn’t know the difference.

The mind makes the difference. But what and where is the mind?

Now, that’s the one question to all our answers. From belief to clarity.

Exactly!

Boom!

Happy days nobodies.

[Age]

The universe cannot form any distinction between nothing and something. It doesn’t know the difference.

Of course the one and only physical Universe, Itself, does not know things, including the difference.

What knows things, including the difference, is the Mind, Itself. Which, by the way also knows, irrefutably, that it is physically and logically impossible for some thing to come from no thing.

Therefore, nothing does not turn into something, rendering the question of this thread completely and utterly redundant, and moot.

The mind makes the difference. But what and where is the mind?

Everywhere, and that is how you human beings are able to see within and know 'other things'.

Now, that’s the one question to all our answers. From belief to clarity.

What are 'you' even on about, here?

That one question of "fairy's", here, is not the 'one question' to all of 'your answers', at all. Why do 'you' keep saying and claiming things that are not True at all?

The answer to the one question that will answer and solve all of your human being's questions is, actually, just 'the question', How can we find 'the solution' that will solve all of 'our problems'?

Obviously, the answer to 'this question' will be 'the solution' to each and every problem, in Life.

And, by the way, 'the answer', and thus 'the solution', to that 'question' and 'problem' is very, very simple and easy.

In fact for each and every problem, in Life, there is a solution, and for each and every solution there is a formula.

Now, each and every 'problem' is just a question posed for a solution, and, the solution that will solve each and every problem is just found with and in 'the formula' H.O.W. With Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want to change, for the better, then this is HOW all problems, in Life, can be solved, and resolved. Also, it was through Honesty, Openness, and Want HOW 'the answer', and thus 'the solution', to 'the question', and 'the problem', 'HOW can 'we' find 'the solution' that will solve all of 'our problems' was found, and re-solved.

In fact HOW all answers to all questions, themselves', are found is just through, and with and in, the formula 'H.O,W.', itself.

Life, and living, really is this simple, and easy. There is absolutely nothing hard, nor complex, in and with Life, Itself.

Exactly!

Boom!

Happy days nobodies.

[Belinda]

The universe cannot form any distinction between nothing and something. It doesn’t know the difference.

Of course the one and only physical Universe, Itself, does not know things, including the difference.

What knows things, including the difference, is the Mind, Itself. Which, by the way also knows, irrefutably, that it is physically and logically impossible for some thing to come from no thing.

Therefore, nothing does not turn into something, rendering the question of this thread completely and utterly redundant, and moot.

The mind makes the difference. But what and where is the mind?

Everywhere, and that is how you human beings are able to see within and know 'other things'.

Now, that’s the one question to all our answers. From belief to clarity.

What are 'you' even on about, here?

That one question of "fairy's", here, is not the 'one question' to all of 'your answers', at all. Why do 'you' keep saying and claiming things that are not True at all?

The answer to the one question that will answer and solve all of your human being's questions is, actually, just 'the question', How can we find 'the solution' that will solve all of 'our problems'?

Obviously, the answer to 'this question' will be 'the solution' to each and every problem, in Life.

And, by the way, 'the answer', and thus 'the solution', to that 'question' and 'problem' is very, very simple and easy.

In fact for each and every problem, in Life, there is a solution, and for each and every solution there is a formula.

Now, each and every 'problem' is just a question posed for a solution, and, the solution that will solve each and every problem is just found with and in 'the formula' H.O.W. With Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want to change, for the better, then this is HOW all problems, in Life, can be solved, and resolved. Also, it was through Honesty, Openness, and Want HOW 'the answer', and thus 'the solution', to 'the question', and 'the problem', 'HOW can 'we' find 'the solution' that will solve all of 'our problems' was found, and re-solved.

In fact HOW all answers to all questions, themselves', are found is just through, and with and in, the formula 'H.O,W.', itself.

Life, and living, really is this simple, and easy. There is absolutely nothing hard, nor complex, in and with Life, Itself.

Exactly!

Boom!

Happy days nobodies.

If something could happen then it eventually will happen. It is not true that nothing comes from nothing. Randomness can make something happen; there do not have to be identifiable causes.

[Walker]

I understand that, negation of negation leads to a positive.

But I dont understand what happens after, wouldn't you just have positive=positive infinitely? How do you get the next thing? How would you get something and nothing seperate, yin and yang?

Another way to divide the yin from the yang is to think of intelligence balancing entropy.

Emptiness holds infinite potentiality because emptiness has no thing to limit potentiality.

When conditions are ripe, some thing manifests from infinite potentiality.

For example, jet airliners have existed within infinite potentiality since time began. Human intelligence is one of the elements required for jet airliners to manifest from the infinite potentiality of emptiness, unless one is relying on a thousand immortal monkeys and infinite time to build one.

[Age]

The universe cannot form any distinction between nothing and something. It doesn’t know the difference.

Of course the one and only physical Universe, Itself, does not know things, including the difference.

What knows things, including the difference, is the Mind, Itself. Which, by the way also knows, irrefutably, that it is physically and logically impossible for some thing to come from no thing.

Therefore, nothing does not turn into something, rendering the question of this thread completely and utterly redundant, and moot.

The mind makes the difference. But what and where is the mind?

Everywhere, and that is how you human beings are able to see within and know 'other things'.

Now, that’s the one question to all our answers. From belief to clarity.

What are 'you' even on about, here?

That one question of "fairy's", here, is not the 'one question' to all of 'your answers', at all. Why do 'you' keep saying and claiming things that are not True at all?

The answer to the one question that will answer and solve all of your human being's questions is, actually, just 'the question', How can we find 'the solution' that will solve all of 'our problems'?

Obviously, the answer to 'this question' will be 'the solution' to each and every problem, in Life.

And, by the way, 'the answer', and thus 'the solution', to that 'question' and 'problem' is very, very simple and easy.

In fact for each and every problem, in Life, there is a solution, and for each and every solution there is a formula.

Now, each and every 'problem' is just a question posed for a solution, and, the solution that will solve each and every problem is just found with and in 'the formula' H.O.W. With Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want to change, for the better, then this is HOW all problems, in Life, can be solved, and resolved. Also, it was through Honesty, Openness, and Want HOW 'the answer', and thus 'the solution', to 'the question', and 'the problem', 'HOW can 'we' find 'the solution' that will solve all of 'our problems' was found, and re-solved.

In fact HOW all answers to all questions, themselves', are found is just through, and with and in, the formula 'H.O,W.', itself.

Life, and living, really is this simple, and easy. There is absolutely nothing hard, nor complex, in and with Life, Itself.

Exactly!

Boom!

Happy days nobodies.

If something could happen then it eventually will happen.

Why do you say and claim this for, exactly?

'you', the human being, could become an "astronaut", for example, therefore that is some thing that could happen, but this in no way means that it, eventually, will happen?

So, why do you believe what you claimed, here.

It is not true that nothing comes from nothing.

Okay, but I do not know of anyone who would think that it is true that nothing 'comes from' nothing.

Randomness can make something happen; there do not have to be identifiable causes.

How, exactly can 'randomness', itself, supposedly make some thing happen?

And, if you do not have any identifiable cases, then how can you know 'it' happens and/or could happen?

[Eodnhoj7]

The universe cannot form any distinction between nothing and something. It doesn’t know the difference.

Of course the one and only physical Universe, Itself, does not know things, including the difference.

What knows things, including the difference, is the Mind, Itself. Which, by the way also knows, irrefutably, that it is physically and logically impossible for some thing to come from no thing.

Therefore, nothing does not turn into something, rendering the question of this thread completely and utterly redundant, and moot.

The mind makes the difference. But what and where is the mind?

Everywhere, and that is how you human beings are able to see within and know 'other things'.

Now, that’s the one question to all our answers. From belief to clarity.

What are 'you' even on about, here?

That one question of "fairy's", here, is not the 'one question' to all of 'your answers', at all. Why do 'you' keep saying and claiming things that are not True at all?

The answer to the one question that will answer and solve all of your human being's questions is, actually, just 'the question', How can we find 'the solution' that will solve all of 'our problems'?

Obviously, the answer to 'this question' will be 'the solution' to each and every problem, in Life.

And, by the way, 'the answer', and thus 'the solution', to that 'question' and 'problem' is very, very simple and easy.

In fact for each and every problem, in Life, there is a solution, and for each and every solution there is a formula.

Now, each and every 'problem' is just a question posed for a solution, and, the solution that will solve each and every problem is just found with and in 'the formula' H.O.W. With Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want to change, for the better, then this is HOW all problems, in Life, can be solved, and resolved. Also, it was through Honesty, Openness, and Want HOW 'the answer', and thus 'the solution', to 'the question', and 'the problem', 'HOW can 'we' find 'the solution' that will solve all of 'our problems' was found, and re-solved.

In fact HOW all answers to all questions, themselves', are found is just through, and with and in, the formula 'H.O,W.', itself.

Life, and living, really is this simple, and easy. There is absolutely nothing hard, nor complex, in and with Life, Itself.

Exactly!

Boom!

Happy days nobodies.

If something could happen then it eventually will happen. It is not true that nothing comes from nothing. Randomness can make something happen; there do not have to be identifiable causes.

A car only appears if there is the empty space that gives it potential to do so. Things only occur if the potentiality is there, this potentiality is the absence of actuality, ie nothingness. By nothingness Things occur for nothingness is thr potentiality by which things have the space and means to be.

[Eodnhoj7]

The universe cannot form any distinction between nothing and something. It doesn’t know the difference.

The mind makes the difference. But what and where is the mind?

Now, that’s the one question to all our answers. From belief to clarity.

Exactly!

Boom!

Happy days nobodies.

The universe is mind, the recursion of potentiality is the means by which potentiality becomes distinctly actualized as potentiality. Potentiality is an absence of thingness that becomes distinct for what it is by its own potentiality. Potentiality, nothingness, gives the means by which distinction occurs for it is the space by which distinction is.