Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:48 am Absolute vacuums are forever being violated including at the very infinitesimal time frame of NOW

HOW could 'absolute vacuums be violated" NOW or forever?

Either there is 'absolute vacuums" or there is NOT. So, which one is it?

If it is the latter, then there is NO use using the phrase 'absolute vacuum' again here.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:48 amThe smallest of physical things is actually unknown but absolute vacuums at that level would be violated too

So, are you proposing here that what is actually UNKNOWN, 'you' KNOW of?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:48 amTherefore parts of the not empty space one sees around them is actually not empty beyond the infinitesimal

How could 'you', human beings, even see what is, or what is not, between the smallest particles of matter, which 'you' INSIST is NOT empty?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:48 amElectromagnetism is universal but it is a force rather than a thing and gravity is universal too though only at the classical level
Gravity is also regarded as a force although it may be more accurate to describe it as the effect that mass has upon spacetime

Yes this very commonly known perception of things can be read in lots of places. But, this is MISSING completely what I am alluding to. I am NOT sure what 'you' think I am talking about here, but when 'you' bring up things like this here, this implies 'you' are way off of the MARK?

What I am saying I have NOT seen thought about before, let alone written about previously, so it may take some time, for some, to FULLY UNDERSTAND what it IS that I am talking about AND saying.

Name the smallest KNOWN sub-atomic physical particles of matter.

Now, what is between those physical particles of matter?

Are they joined together or is there A distance between them?

If they are joined together, then there is only One singular infinite compression of matter, which seems IMPOSSIBLE. Considering the physical parts of the Universe are ALLOWED to move FREELY about.

However, if they are NOT joined to together, and there is A distance, then what is this 'distance' actually made up of EXACTLY?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:48 amThere is no one universal singular infinite compression of matter because it all has significantly different properties and capabilities

When 'you' say, "it all has ...", what is the 'it' here?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:48 amThere are four states of matter - solid - liquid - gas - plasma - and each state will have a different atomic composition and density

Okay.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:48 amThe Universe is a single entity but it is equally made up of many individual physical things just like many things are

I NOTICE that you did NOT directly answer MANY of my actual questions posed to you.

If the Universe is One thing made up of many individual physical things, then what is 'IT' exactly, which separates and keeps these individual physical things apart from each other?

Maybe IF 'you' just answered EACH of my questions DIRECTLY, from a Truly OPEN and Honest perspective, instead of 'trying to' tell 'us' what IS the Truth of things here, then 'you' MIGHT see what I am saying?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 am Re: NOTHING, AND WHY THE QUESTION "WHY IS THERE SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO NOTHING?" IS UNANSWERABLE.

The above cannot be absolutely absolute.

It is answerable but depend the context and framework of knowledge and how one defines 'something' and 'nothing'.

First there is no framework of knowledge [conditional] that is absolute, i.e. this is contradictory.

So WHY write it?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 amExample, within common sense framework, it is either there is something in the drawer or nothing in it. Space is not viewed as a thing.

Why NOT?

Obviously 'space' is some thing, otherwise the word would NOT have come to exist ,ALSO.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 am'Things' that exists within the scientific framework of knowledge may not be 'things' [i.e. nothing] within certain philosophical framework of knowledge.
Scientific things are nothing in terms of the one perspective of the Philosophy of Substance.

What are examples of, so called, 'scientific things'?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 am

Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.
-wiki

Absolutely ANY theory COULD BE WRONG.

WHY NOT just LOOK AT ONLY what IS actually True, Right, AND Correct, instead?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 amCertain Eastern Philosophy view [Maya] whatever is 'something' is an illusion [nothing], i.e. not-that-thing supposed.
An apple is a thing, but an apple is more precisely a cluster of a number-n of molecules, atoms, particles or waves [note], quarks and ultimately substantial 'nothing' that one can speak of.

Within theological philosophy, God is a thing, but an illusion [no real thing] within Kantian philosophy.

So, REALLY this type of 'philosophy' is NOT even worth LOOKING AT, as well.

ONLY what IS REALLY True, Right, AND Correct is Truly what IS REALLY WORTH LOOKING AT.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 amRe the OP the statement cannot be absolutely absolute but applicable depending on the context and framework of knowledge and how one defines 'something' and 'nothing'.

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. So, 'you' are NOT really saying any thing at all here.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 amWhat is critical to the question of something or nothing is the resultant utility that should be a net-positive contribution and optimal to the individual and therefrom to humanity on an on-going basis.

This, to me, just sounds like some one speaking in a way as though they REALLY BELIEVE that they KNOW a lot more, than they REALLY DO.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:43 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 am Re: NOTHING, AND WHY THE QUESTION "WHY IS THERE SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO NOTHING?" IS UNANSWERABLE.

The above cannot be absolutely absolute.

It is answerable but depend the context and framework of knowledge and how one defines 'something' and 'nothing'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 amFirst there is no framework of knowledge [conditional] that is absolute, i.e. this is contradictory.

So WHY write it?

Example, within common sense framework, it is either there is something in the drawer or nothing in it. Space is not viewed as a thing.

Why NOT?

Obviously 'space' is some thing, otherwise the word would NOT have come to exist ,ALSO.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 am'Things' that exists within the scientific framework of knowledge may not be 'things' [i.e. nothing] within certain philosophical framework of knowledge.
Scientific things are nothing in terms of the one perspective of the Philosophy of Substance.

What are examples of, so called, 'scientific things'?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 am

Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.
-wiki

Absolutely ANY theory COULD BE WRONG.

WHY NOT just LOOK AT ONLY what IS actually True, Right, AND Correct, instead?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 amCertain Eastern Philosophy view [Maya] whatever is 'something' is an illusion [nothing], i.e. not-that-thing supposed.
An apple is a thing, but an apple is more precisely a cluster of a number-n of molecules, atoms, particles or waves [note], quarks and ultimately substantial 'nothing' that one can speak of.

Within theological philosophy, God is a thing, but an illusion [no real thing] within Kantian philosophy.

So, REALLY this type of 'philosophy' is NOT even worth LOOKING AT, as well.

ONLY what IS REALLY True, Right, AND Correct is Truly what IS REALLY WORTH LOOKING AT.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 amRe the OP the statement cannot be absolutely absolute but applicable depending on the context and framework of knowledge and how one defines 'something' and 'nothing'.

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. So, 'you' are NOT really saying any thing at all here.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 amWhat is critical to the question of something or nothing is the resultant utility that should be a net-positive contribution and optimal to the individual and therefrom to humanity on an on-going basis.

This, to me, just sounds like some one speaking in a way as though they REALLY BELIEVE that they KNOW a lot more, than they REALLY DO.

The above is proof what I stated is correct, your 'theory of mind' is impaired, i.e. damaged within your brain.

You are always insisting on your 'oranges' when the topic is about 'apples'. Even then you will not understand this saying [idiom] and babble about something out of point on this.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:48 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:43 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 am Re: NOTHING, AND WHY THE QUESTION "WHY IS THERE SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO NOTHING?" IS UNANSWERABLE.

The above cannot be absolutely absolute.

It is answerable but depend the context and framework of knowledge and how one defines 'something' and 'nothing'.



So WHY write it?

Example, within common sense framework, it is either there is something in the drawer or nothing in it. Space is not viewed as a thing.

Why NOT?

Obviously 'space' is some thing, otherwise the word would NOT have come to exist ,ALSO.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 am'Things' that exists within the scientific framework of knowledge may not be 'things' [i.e. nothing] within certain philosophical framework of knowledge.
Scientific things are nothing in terms of the one perspective of the Philosophy of Substance.

What are examples of, so called, 'scientific things'?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 am

Absolutely ANY theory COULD BE WRONG.

WHY NOT just LOOK AT ONLY what IS actually True, Right, AND Correct, instead?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 amCertain Eastern Philosophy view [Maya] whatever is 'something' is an illusion [nothing], i.e. not-that-thing supposed.
An apple is a thing, but an apple is more precisely a cluster of a number-n of molecules, atoms, particles or waves [note], quarks and ultimately substantial 'nothing' that one can speak of.

Within theological philosophy, God is a thing, but an illusion [no real thing] within Kantian philosophy.

So, REALLY this type of 'philosophy' is NOT even worth LOOKING AT, as well.

ONLY what IS REALLY True, Right, AND Correct is Truly what IS REALLY WORTH LOOKING AT.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 amRe the OP the statement cannot be absolutely absolute but applicable depending on the context and framework of knowledge and how one defines 'something' and 'nothing'.

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. So, 'you' are NOT really saying any thing at all here.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:16 amWhat is critical to the question of something or nothing is the resultant utility that should be a net-positive contribution and optimal to the individual and therefrom to humanity on an on-going basis.

This, to me, just sounds like some one speaking in a way as though they REALLY BELIEVE that they KNOW a lot more, than they REALLY DO.

The above is proof what I stated is correct, your 'theory of mind' is impaired, i.e. damaged within your brain.

So, now 'you' have gone from "theory of mind" to "YOUR" "theory of mind".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:48 amYou are always insisting on your 'oranges' when the topic is about 'apples'.

LOL

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:48 amEven then you will not understand this saying [idiom] and babble about something out of point on this.

And yet one lot of "babbling" CAN make far more sense than another lot of "babble". So, what are 'you' actually talking about, and saying, here?

Age wrote:
Maybe IF you just answered EACH of my questions DIRECTLY from a Truly OPEN and Honest perspective instead of trying to tell us
what IS the Truth of things here then you MIGHT see what I am saying here

Where am I actually trying to tell you the Truth of things here - can you point to any specific examples where this has been done
I have not even used the phrase the Truth of things so why do you think that is what I am trying to do

I am not proposing any such Truth at all but am merely trying to answer your questions as best as I can
For all I know my answers could be entirely wrong but they are still the best that I can give right now

As far as not answering ALL of your questions I have already told you multiple times now that I do not have the mental energy to do this
You at first accepted this but once AGAIN however you are implying that I should answer all of them when I do not want to do that at all

Age wrote:
Obviously space is some thing otherwise the word would NOT have come to exist ALSO

Why do you think that space is a physical thing - can you give a reason as to why you actually think that this is so
Do you think that things are all that exist - what is your definition of a thing and can that definition apply to space
Do you think that words only refer to things and nothing else and if you do then what is your reason for thinking this

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:31 am

Age wrote:
Maybe IF you just answered EACH of my questions DIRECTLY from a Truly OPEN and Honest perspective instead of trying to tell us
what IS the Truth of things here then you MIGHT see what I am saying here

Where am I actually trying to tell you the Truth of things here - can you point to any specific examples where this has been done

Yes.

Where 'you' are actually 'trying to' tell me the Truth of things is provided in the examples below:

1. Absolute vacuums are forever being violated including at the very infinitesimal time frame of NOW


2. The smallest of physical things is actually unknown but absolute vacuums at that level would be violated too

3. Therefore parts of the not empty space one sees around them is actually not empty beyond the infinitesimal

4. Electromagnetism is universal but it is a force rather than a thing and gravity is universal too though only at the classical level

5. Gravity is also regarded as a force although it may be more accurate to describe it as the effect that mass has upon spacetime

6. There is no one universal singular infinite compression of matter because it all has significantly different properties and capabilities

7. There are four states of matter - solid - liquid - gas - plasma - and each state will have a different atomic composition and density

8. The Universe is a single entity but it is equally made up of many individual physical things just like many things are

There is eight specific examples of where you have actually 'tried to' tell me/us the Truth of things here.

If, however, 'you' are now going to say there 'you' are NOT 'trying to' tell me/us the Truth of things here, then what exactly are 'you' 'trying to' to tell me/us here with what 'you' have written here?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:31 amI have not even used the phrase the Truth of things so why do you think that is what I am trying to do

One does NOT have to use the actual phrase "the Truth of things" to actually 'try' and say or express this.

I am not proposing any such Truth at all but am merely trying to answer your questions as best as I can

Well, from my perspective, 'you' are deflecting away from answering the actual question asked directly, and instead just expressing what 'you' SEE is the actual Truth of things.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:31 amFor all I know my answers could be entirely wrong but they are still the best that I can give right now

But those answers are NOT directly answering the questions I asked.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:31 amAs far as not answering ALL of your questions I have already told you multiple times now that I do not have the mental energy to do this

So, WHY do 'you' have the so called "mental energy" to reply with what 'you' think/see is the truth but NOT have the "mental energy" to reply to my questions?

If 'you' have the "mental energy" to just reply to what I write, WHY do 'you' supposedly NOT have the "mental energy" to NOT reply to the actual questions I ask?

Some might SEE your responses now just an attempt at "justifying" NOT responding to the actual questions posed, to you.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:31 amYou at first accepted this but once AGAIN however you are implying that I should answer all of them when I do not want to do that at all

To me, there is NO "should". If 'you' do NOT want to respond all of my actual questions, but respond by expressing what 'you' think/see is the truth of things, then I will question WHY you have thee energy to do one thing, but NOT the other?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:43 am

Age wrote:
Obviously space is some thing otherwise the word would NOT have come to exist ALSO

Why do you think that space is a physical thing - can you give a reason as to why you actually think that this is so

WHY would 'you' ASSUME such an OBVIOUSLY ridiculous AND absurd thing?

When have 'I' EVER said or stated that 'space' is a 'physical thing'?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:43 amDo you think that things are all that exist - what is your definition of a thing and can that definition apply to space

WHY are 'you' now deflecting away from what I have posed, which 'you' INSIST and SAY is NOT true?

From what 'I' have observed only 'things' exist. Do 'you' KNOW of any 'thing' that exists, which is NOT a 'thing'? (I am NOT sure how to pose that question in another way.)

My definition of a 'thing' is; An object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to, or Just a word or label placed on one of any specific part of Existence, Itself.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:43 amDo you think that words only refer to things and nothing else and if you do then what is your reason for thinking this

What do 'you' actually mean when 'you' use the word 'things' here?

Is it possible for a word to refer to NOT a thing?

I think that words refer to things.

The reason I think this is because I have yet to see a word refer to any thing but a 'thing'.

Age wrote:
There is eight specific examples of where you have actually tried to tell me / us the Truth of things here

If however you are now going to say there you are NOT trying to tell me / us the Truth of things
here then what exactly are you trying to tell me / us here with what you have written here

Those are not examples of me telling the Truth of things but of me simply stating what I think could be true based on my own limited knowledge
I could be entirely right or entirely wrong or partly right and partly wrong but whichever it is I am not trying to tell you the Truth of things at all

Age wrote:
WHY do you have the so called mental energy to reply with what you think / see
is the truth but NOT have the mental energy to reply to my questions

Because there are too many of them which I have already told you before
Also it is entirely up to me whether or not I answer any of your questions
You have previously said you do not expect all of them to be answered by me anyway

Age wrote:
When have I EVER said or stated that space is a physical thing now

You said that space is a thing so if you do not think it is physical then it must be non physical
So do you think space is a non physical thing and if so then how can it actually exist in reality

Age wrote:
Is it possible for a word to refer to NOT a thing now

Things are classed as physical while thoughts for example are classed as mental
Things that are classed as mental are regarded as being essentially non physical

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:13 pm

Age wrote:
There is eight specific examples of where you have actually tried to tell me / us the Truth of things here

If however you are now going to say there you are NOT trying to tell me / us the Truth of things
here then what exactly are you trying to tell me / us here with what you have written here

Those are not examples of me telling the Truth of things

I KNOW that they are NOT examples of you telling the Truth of things, this is WHY I specifically wrote they are examples of where 'you' have 'tried to' tell me/us the Truth of things. I specifically highlight some words in single quote marks to make the point that I am using those words, BECAUSE things can all to easily get taken out of context without those words. YET here 'you' are once again rewriting my words in NOT the EXACT SAME way I write them. I will NOT ask 'you', once again, WHY 'you' do this?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:13 pmbut of me simply stating what I think could be true based on my own limited knowledge

Okay, But do you have ANY actual EVIDENCE and PROOF for what 'you' just THINK is true?

Can you back up and support WHOLLY and FULLY what 'you' THINK is true?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:13 pmI could be entirely right or entirely wrong or partly right and partly wrong but whichever it is I am not trying to tell you the Truth of things at all

Well I have SHOWN WHERE 'you' are WRONG. Did 'you' SEE it?

Also, if you are NOT 'trying to' tell 'me' the Truth of things, then what are 'you' 'trying to' tell 'me'?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:27 pm

Age wrote:
WHY do you have the so called mental energy to reply with what you think / see
is the truth but NOT have the mental energy to reply to my questions

Because there are too many of them which I have already told you before
Also it is entirely up to me whether or not I answer any of your questions

But IF 'you' DID answer my actual question, properly AND correctly, instead, then you would SEE that what 'you' reply with is usually WRONG or partly wrong anyway. So, "saving" a LOT of 'your' "mental energy".

Also, the "mental energy" wasted going over the same things repeatedly could be saved by just answering the clarifying questions, which would just back up and support your claims, once and for all time.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:27 pmYou have previously said you do not expect all of them to be answered by me anyway

Have I also made it KNOWN that I do NOT expect ANY thing else, EITHER?