Philosophy Now Forum

JSS wrote:This mathematical proof involves hyperreal mathematics and detailed ontological construction techniques. If you are not deeply familiar with those, you might want to take it very slowly, thinking about and asking about each detail from the beginning to the end.

And note ahead of time that even though we begin speaking merely of random possibilities and infinitesimal probabilities, by the time we get to the end, an absolute impossibility has been established.

================================

Okay, now given that you have 10 cups with the random possibility of each cup having as many as 10 coins in it, what is the possibility that you have the same number of coins in all 10 cups?

Mathematically that would be (1/10)^10 or 0.0000000001.

The state of nothingness and the state of absolute homogeneity are actually the same thing. If there is no distinction in affect at all in every point in space, there is no universe. Thus for a universe to exist, there must be distinction or variation in affect between the points in space. What is the possibility that every point in space is of the exact same value of PtA (potential-to-affect)?

Well, let's define a term as the specific infinite series,
infA ≡ [1+1+1+...]

Just a single infinite line would give us infA^2 points on that line if you want to include all infinitesimal lengths, all "real numbers". And assuming nothing is forcing any particular PtA value, each point on the line might have a value anywhere from infinitesimal to infinite, the range of that same infA^2 but for PtA.

So the possibility for every point on the line to have the same PtA value (given steps of 1 infinitesimal) would be;
Possibility of homogeneous line = (1/infA)^((infA)^2).

That is 1 infinitesimal reduced by itself infinitely an infinite number of times. And right there is the issue. Also in 3D space, you actually have the infinite real-number cube (to simplify from spherical) of;
Possibility of homogeneous space = (1/infA)^(infA^6)

Normally in mathematics if your number has reached 1 infinitesimal, it is accepted as zero and is certainly close enough to zero for all practical purposes but we are literally infinitely less than infinity less than 1 infinitesimal. For 3D space, we are looking at 1 infinitesimal times itself infinitely an infinite number of times, infinitely times an infinite number more times, and infinitely times an infinite number more times.

Given an infinite amount of time (an infinite timeline, another infA^2 of points in time) and with or without causality, the possibility of running across homogeneity of space is;
Possibility of homogeneity through all space = (1/infA)^(infA^6)
Possibility of homogeneity through all time = (1/infA)^(infA^12)

With a possibility being that degree of infinitely small, not only can it never randomly end up homogeneous even through an infinite number of trials (an infinite time line, never getting up to even 1 infinitesimal possibility), but it can't even be forced to be homogeneous. A force is an affect. If all affects are identical, the total affect is zero. What would be left in existence to force all points to be infinitely identical?


But if that isn't good enough for you, realize that those calculations are based on stepped values of merely 1 infinitesimal using a standard of infA. In reality, each step would be as close to absolute zero as possible without actually being absolute zero using a standard of as close to absolute infinity as possible,
AbsInf ≡ highest possible number toward absolute infinity.

And then of course,
1/AbsInf = would be the lowest possible number or value.

Thus we have,
Possibility of homogeneity through all time = (1/AbsInf)^(Absinf^12)

Now we have truly absolute zero possibility because if we are already as close to absolute zero as possible with "1/AbsInf", as soon as we multiply that by any fraction, we have breached absolute zero, impossibly small. And we have breached absolute zero by a factor of AbsInf^12 ... well, well beyond absolute zero possibility of homogeneity.

Thus Absolute Homogeneity, "Nothingness", is absolutely impossible.

Thus no universe could have ever been at a state of absolute nothingness, a pre-Big-Bang state, nor can even the tiniest fraction of any universe ever be absolutely empty. Every point throughout all space and throughout all time is filled with affectance that merely changes in density and potential.

Exyz = p + a0dp/dt + a1dp²/dt² + a3dp³/dt³ + …

Or:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Greta wrote: Can't deny the logic. Biology's negativity bias has a similar asymmetry to Benatar's. No matter how positive a potential resource or mate, it doesn't compare with the threat of death. So we tend to focus more on threats than opportunities. Defensive positioning.

Still, there is still much muddiness in the situation. Why do people who come close to death routinely tend to speak about how they'd previously taken their lives for granted and wax lyrical about how good life is? If reality is ultimately slanted negatively, you'd expect those who are close to death to get a glimpse of that, as opposed to an overpowering sense of love and bliss.

Not really. Again, we are conditioned by our very existence to fear that which isn't existence, or doesn't lead to its continuation. Fear always trumps reason in the end. Though, if we are prepared without fear, or in pain, it's a welcome relief.

Francois is an online friend. I comment on his blog often, under another name, and sometimes share an email or two. Good fellow. He's writing a book on the subject at the moment. As you can agine, the antinatalist community is smallish.

And thank you again for having an open mind, that you'd actually take the time, look, and consider the subject, instead of just dismissing it as counterintuitive to existence. It's refreshing. All I ever ask of anyone is to recognize the reasoning behind it, even if they can't get past the strangness of arguing for nonexistence.

Dalek Prime wrote:Quite correct, yiostheoy.

Dalek Prime wrote:Quite correct, yiostheoy.

There are two types of nothingness; the nothingness of (lack of) matter, and the nothingness that comes with no consciousness, where it's not percieved, known, or cared about, and so matter doesn't matter. Nor time.

Dalek Prime wrote:Not really. Again, we are conditioned by our very existence to fear that which isn't existence, or doesn't lead to its continuation. Fear always trumps reason in the end. Though, if we are prepared without fear, or in pain, it's a welcome relief.

Dalek Prime wrote:And thank you again for having an open mind, that you'd actually take the time, look, and consider the subject, instead of just dismissing it as counterintuitive to existence. It's refreshing. All I ever ask of anyone is to recognize the reasoning behind it, even if they can't get past the strangness of arguing for nonexistence.

During dreamless sleep, there is no sense of self. All cognitive functions and sensory organs are nullified. We become blank slates with no identities, memories, or responsibilities. During this state, we recess from all daily cares and become one with the universe. We never directly experience this state - we are only able to reflect upon it during waking life. Consciousness is a form of fracture, and dreamless sleep is a form of wholeness. What dreamless sleep tells us about "the greater scheme of things" is that there are no permanent divisions between persons, or between persons and their environments. Any and all divisions (i.e. political, social, etc) are self-imposed. The very fact of dreamless sleep should challenge us to re-think our relationships to others and the world.

Dreamless sleep also has implications for birth and death. Dreamless sleep, the period before birth, and the period after death are all alike insofar as they are blank slates that cannot be experienced.

Greta wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Not really. Again, we are conditioned by our very existence to fear that which isn't existence, or doesn't lead to its continuation. Fear always trumps reason in the end. Though, if we are prepared without fear, or in pain, it's a welcome relief.

Well, it's surely better than the process of dying. Still, oblivion seems the less valuable thing, much easier to attain. Maybe ...

Dalek Prime wrote:And thank you again for having an open mind, that you'd actually take the time, look, and consider the subject, instead of just dismissing it as counterintuitive to existence. It's refreshing. All I ever ask of anyone is to recognize the reasoning behind it, even if they can't get past the strangness of arguing for nonexistence.

Why not. Just another POV.

You might also enjoy an interesting perspective in response to a thread on sleep on another philosophy forum I chat on, where he makes a case for non-consciousness:

During dreamless sleep, there is no sense of self. All cognitive functions and sensory organs are nullified. We become blank slates with no identities, memories, or responsibilities. During this state, we recess from all daily cares and become one with the universe. We never directly experience this state - we are only able to reflect upon it during waking life. Consciousness is a form of fracture, and dreamless sleep is a form of wholeness. What dreamless sleep tells us about "the greater scheme of things" is that there are no permanent divisions between persons, or between persons and their environments. Any and all divisions (i.e. political, social, etc) are self-imposed. The very fact of dreamless sleep should challenge us to re-think our relationships to others and the world.

Dreamless sleep also has implications for birth and death. Dreamless sleep, the period before birth, and the period after death are all alike insofar as they are blank slates that cannot be experienced.

I personally find that separateness has its merits.

Greta wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Not really. Again, we are conditioned by our very existence to fear that which isn't existence, or doesn't lead to its continuation. Fear always trumps reason in the end. Though, if we are prepared without fear, or in pain, it's a welcome relief.

Well, it's surely better than the process of dying. Still, oblivion seems the less valuable thing, much easier to attain. Maybe ... Why is oblivion less valuable? Don't just say it, explain it. I misunderstood that you understood the asymmetry.As to experiencing death, it's the outcome of existing in the first place.

Dalek Prime wrote:And thank you again for having an open mind, that you'd actually take the time, look, and consider the subject, instead of just dismissing it as counterintuitive to existence. It's refreshing. All I ever ask of anyone is to recognize the reasoning behind it, even if they can't get past the strangness of arguing for nonexistence.

Why not. Just another POV. One that hasn't so far been refuted, logically. That's a pretty safe bet for a POV.

You might also enjoy an interesting perspective in response to a thread on sleep on another philosophy forum I chat on, where he makes a case for non-consciousness:

During dreamless sleep, there is no sense of self. All cognitive functions and sensory organs are nullified. We become blank slates with no identities, memories, or responsibilities. During this state, we recess from all daily cares and become one with the universe. We never directly experience this state - we are only able to reflect upon it during waking life. Consciousness is a form of fracture, and dreamless sleep is a form of wholeness. What dreamless sleep tells us about "the greater scheme of things" is that there are no permanent divisions between persons, or between persons and their environments. Any and all divisions (i.e. political, social, etc) are self-imposed. The very fact of dreamless sleep should challenge us to re-think our relationships to others and the world.

Dreamless sleep also has implications for birth and death. Dreamless sleep, the period before birth, and the period after death are all alike insofar as they are blank slates that cannot be experienced.

I personally find that separateness has its merits. And what are the merits you find to existence, that you'd miss exactly if you had not existed?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Nothingness is impossible for ever because nothing is nothing.
It has no voice, and cannot express possibility in any sense.
That really wraps it up for the whole thread

SpheresOfBalance wrote: No it doesn't! Where do black holes go, nothingness?

You measure 'everywhere' with your yardstick of 'here,' yet you have no idea of where 'everywhere' is. Somewhere there could be nothingness,

... in that nothing may exist.

Before something banged here, creating everything, what was here? Our universe had to displace something, before the big bang banged, was there something? What was it? How can we be sure?

Well, it's surely better than the process of dying. Still, oblivion seems the less valuable thing, much easier to attain. Maybe ...

Dalek Prime wrote:Why is oblivion less valuable? Don't just say it, explain it. I misunderstood that you understood the asymmetry.As to experiencing death, it's the outcome of existing in the first place.

During dreamless sleep, there is no sense of self. All cognitive functions and sensory organs are nullified. We become blank slates with no identities, memories, or responsibilities. During this state, we recess from all daily cares and become one with the universe. We never directly experience this state - we are only able to reflect upon it during waking life. Consciousness is a form of fracture, and dreamless sleep is a form of wholeness. What dreamless sleep tells us about "the greater scheme of things" is that there are no permanent divisions between persons...

Dalek Prime wrote:I agree with the poster regarding dreamless sleep, and use it as an example, often, of what nonexistence would be like. However, he romanticises it, and talks about being one with the universe, though he can't experience the universe, (so clearly he is not one with it) and says, unfathomably, that it breaks down divisions between people, and shows there are no real divisions between us, though he is entirely separated from them in deep sleep, not experiencing them at all, and completely oblivious to them. He fails to understand this. What he's describing really is more akin to the saying 'fences make for good neighbours' because he's experiencing the peace that is nothingness.

Dalek Prime wrote:I won't argue or push the nuances of my position, Greta. It's enough to know there is someone on this forum who will take the time to listen and consider. Cheers.

Greta wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:I won't argue or push the nuances of my position, Greta. It's enough to know there is someone on this forum who will take the time to listen and consider. Cheers.

I think the points I made above are pivotal to the issue. You don't agree. Why?