Philosophy Now Forum

Given that we are 'something', if you assume that 'nothing' is not real. We have...

Something == Something OR Nothing

where "nothing' is defined as "not-something".

Yet, note that

Nothing == Something AND Nothing


______________________

We defined "matter" as "that which occupies "space". But most think that "space" is somehow less real with confusion in the same way as the above but opposite:

(Matter) == Something AND Nothing ......since matter is dependent upon space, as a 'nothing' to lie in while space still exists without matter.

Because space exists independent of matter, we have "space", as a form of relative 'nothing' to mean that it MUST exist if matter exists. But IF space exists apriori, then it IS possible for "space", as a "nothing" to exist as....

(Space) == Something OR Nothing. .......since space can exist by itself OR included within matter, as a 'something'.


The above demonstrates two opposite logical interpretions of 'nothing' that conflict unless we interpret them coexisting in Totality necessarily.

In fact, the above suggests that with respect to Totality, NOTHING == SOMETHING.

_______________________
While this is relatively 'contradicting' to us for any particular ordered world, like ours, if you interpret NOTHING as outside of Totality, then there is NO 'outside' because Totality is all there is. Then this means that Absolutely Everything exists. And given that the concept, "Absolute Nothing" then is also true by this meaning, while it seems conflicting, it is not with respect to Totality because the essence of an absolute state of Nothingness would lack even 'consistency' there without a problem because we define it as 'inconsistent' by

Nothing == Nothing AND Something

Thus, on the level of Totality, "inconsistency" rules it AS being Nothing. It is breaking no 'law' because laws are necessarily 'consistent' and we have this:

Inconsist Reality == Inconsistent AND Consistent Realities collectively.

To us, we cannot determine literally THAT we were born nor die, even where we, being alive, we can use this to refer to others. So...

IF AND ONLY IF reality has a ORIGIN, it can only ultimately 'begin' in as ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. This is a conditional truth. The only alternative is INFINITELY EVERYTHING exists. You cannot assert that which lies outside of Totality where it is infinitely inclusive from being trapped inside of it. As such, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING == INFINTELY EVERYTHING and has to include at least an Absolute Nothing as 'some origin'.

Therefore, Absolute Nothing exists.

It just has no 'time' as we interpret 'existence' requiring for us to have meaning.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:16 pm The principle of causality (PoC) says that everything has a cause. PoC, however, applies to material things. Nothing is not material. Therefore, PoC does not apply to it.

This also indicates that nothing to something is possible which means that there is no need for God.

It does apply, since no cause means no effect. This can be as important as knowing the causes and effects. As Adorno says this indeterminacy or abstract negation, which being thus has in itself, is what external as well as inner reflection expresses, in that it equates it with nothingness, declares it as an empty thought-figure, as nothingness. - Or one may express it, that because being is that which is devoid of determination, it is not the (affirmative) determinacy, which it is, not being, but nothingness. Indeterminacy is tacitly used as a synonym for the indeterminate. In its concept disappears that which it is a concept of; it becomes equated to the indeterminate as its determination, and this permits the identification of the indeterminate with nothing.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:08 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:16 pm The principle of causality (PoC) says that everything has a cause. PoC, however, applies to material things. Nothing is not material. Therefore, PoC does not apply to it.

This also indicates that nothing to something is possible which means that there is no need for God.

It does apply, since no cause means no effect.

If Nothing is 'original' (or logically, apriori), then this suffices to inclusively contain both cause and effect. If this state of being existed, you may think it cannot 'cause' something to manifest, right? But then the alternative is that BOTH Nothing AND Something exist, and thus that no 'origin' can exist. Nothing still has to be simultaneously true of ALL things that exist, in other words because Something cannot exist INDEPENDENT of Nothing and then it would mean that not even something you classify as "Nothing" could be true or you'd be contradicting yourself in assuming no such thing as "nothing'.

Therefore, you have to accept the coexistence of these extremes, even though the meaning of an 'absoulte' type of nothing has to be included. We just cannot demonstrate literally what nothing is in absence of something because WE are made of something that cannot deny its own existence. This makes the idea of this at best, "ineffible", especially for those unable to infer meaning to nothing as possibly apriori.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:47 am Where do people get these faulty beliefs? I happen to be one of those 'uniovular' twins [ie, 'identical'] and of a family of a few of them. One of my older twin sisters died. The other is still alive.

I am glad she is alive
But, coming back to the issue: how do you justify "right" if there is no "left"?
If one side is gone the other doesn't make any sense any more either (meaning: it "dies" together with its sibling).

For the logical/dualistic mind there exists no one-sided coin (in Zen they use this as a tool for meditation on your real nature - eg Hakuin's koan: "What's the sound of one hand clapping?")

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:53 am

Much simpler version: there's no such thing as absolute nothing.

'Absolute nothing' exists, but only ever in imagination only.

It cannot exist in the imagination directly. It has no content and is 'absolute'.

You having already deduced that 'absolute nothing' has no content and is 'absolute', which, obviously, does NOT actually exist, and is thus just in imagination only, has just proven my statement about how 'absolute nothing' exists in imagination only.

So, thank you.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm There IS an 'absolute nothing' though when you deduce it from what we know.

You say here here that " There is an 'absolute nothing' ". I will give you this. Now show and prove to the readers where EXACTLY this 'absolute nothing' IS. Where could 'absolute nothing' actually exist?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm It would be prior to time, space, and matter.

First you would have to prove that there actually IS 'time', 'space', AND 'matter', where these three things exist, EXACTLY, and how EXACTLY they exist.

After you do this, then you would have to prove that there was a 'beginning' and therefore a 'prior' also.

Have fun proving this.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm We cannot point to it (as it points nowhere AND everywhere) but it still has real meaning and needed as a foundation to argue from.

This 'meaning', which is needed as a foundation to argue from I have already done.

As for 'pointing' to 'absolute nothing' then this is just very easily and very simply done through logical reasoning, which, by the way, has already been done. Therefore, 'we' can actually point to 'absolute nothing'. We do this through logically reasoned discussions.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm We have to postulate it, if you cannot mentally grasp it.

If you can postulate 'it', then you are already mentally grasping 'it', [no matter what the 'it' is].

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm The alternative would require one to prove precisely 'how many' exact factors there exists in Totality, which leads to permanent INCOMPLETENESS.

This appears irrelevant, to me.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm The caveate I mentioned about IF there is an origin, would be cancelled where "absolutely everything" exists in Totality.

There could only ever be an IF there is an origin if an 'origin' could be logically possible. Could you explain, logically, how an 'origin' could even exist in regards to the Universe, Itself? (This is asked with the word 'Universe, being defined as absolutely everything, Totality, or ALL-THERE-IS.)

By the way, if 'it' [any thing] could be prove to be logically possible, then 'it' could be proved, or disproved, empirically.

Also, how could 'absolutely everything' NOT exist in Totality?

How are you defining the word 'Totality' here if it does NOT refer to 'absolutely everything'?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm Because we cannot rule out anything AND we can and do utilize the meaning of nothing (absolute or relative), absolutely everything has to be defaulted to (or at least postulated).

Already done.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm This is about Totality, not simply our particular Universe alone.

What do you refer to EXACTLY when you use the words "our Universe"?

And, what does the word 'particular' have in relation to this?

Also, what do you actually mean when you use the word 'Universe'?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm Ours is an ordered and patterned type of Universe.

I only know of One Unverse.

Who, and/or what, are you actually referring to when you use the word 'our' here?

To me, you appear to have some very confusing presumptions.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm You cannot avoid the utility of understanding Nothing.

If you say so.

Can you also not avoid the utility of understanding 'Nothing', or is it just me who cannot avoid the utility of understanding 'Nothing'?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm It is the bedrock of set theory (as the "empty class/set").

Okay, but this is all irrelevant and completely unnecessary to what I actually said and to what I was actually pointing out and referring to.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm You CAN prove powerful truths by undestanding this.

Is 'this' here 'Nothing'?

If so, then what, so called, "powerful truths" CAN i prove by understanding 'Nothing'?

Can you also prove powerful truths, or just me?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm But I don't trust you nor many others could grasp the concept without being able to think on a very extreme deep level and invest in the time ON YOUR OWN incentive.

Grasp what concept?

The concept of 'Nothing' or the concept that 'you' CAN prove "powerful truths" by understanding 'Nothing'?

By the way, understanding 'Nothing' is just as simple and as easy as understanding 'Everything' is, which is just as simple and as easy as understanding Anything IS.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm It is not possible for me to convince you of anything without agreement as to postulates and the means to argue agreed upon.

Actually, it is not possible for you to convince me of anything, other than 'that' what is absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Also, what you said here, to me, sounds like you are 'trying to' make what is essentially extremely simple and easy to see, understand, and know appear hard and complex and as though one has to be an intellectual to see, understand, and know.

'Agreeing on postulates' and 'arguing' are some of the most basic, simplest and easiest things to do in Life. 'Convincing', however, can be one of the hardest and most complex things to do in Life. But the very reason WHY 'convincing' (even the most basic and simplest truths) can be so hard and complex is already very well understood and known.

Because of the belief-system it is not possible to convince some people of even the most blatant absolute Truths. EVERY adult person is at risk of this and does fall into this category.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm I doubt from talking with you before that I'd get anywhere and feel that I'd be wasting my time.

Okay. But if you NEVER even start to explain what 'it' is, then you will NEVER 'know' if you are wasting your time or not.

From what I have ascertained here you really have NOTHING important to say nor explain anyway.

Also, I have heard many people say that they would be "wasting their time if they were to talk with me", many times previously, but what will be discovered soon enough is that these people actually could NOT explain what they thought they knew because they did NOT actually 'know' and 'understand' it as well as they believed they did.

If you can not say what 'it' is that you want to explain here, so that OTHER readers would KNOW what 'it' is that you are talking about and referring to, then do be it. But PLEASE refrain from using 'me' as an excuse for what you CAN NOT explain.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm Sorry.

WHY say something, and then say "Sorry" for saying it?

You have done and said absolutely NOTHING AT ALL that I can see to apologize for. In fact 'you' are PROVING what I have already been saying, and pointing out. So, I am thankful to 'you'

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm I already discovered a lot by understanding this topic and the paradoxes of Zeno have helped express the problems involved quite well.

If this is what you believe, then okay.

BUT, if you REALLY understood "this topic" [whatever that may be to you], then there would be NO 'problems' AT ALL.

Considering that to you there are still 'problems involved', then this shows that you still have some more understanding to do on "this topic".

By the way you MISSED COMPLETELY what I was referring to about the, so called, "paradoxes of zeno", but this appears to be completely irrelevant, to you.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm [When the world is witnessing the likes of the present politics where no amount of direct logic is effective,

On which "side" of the 'present politics' do you think or believe that the 'direct logic' lays?

In case you are unaware BOTH "sides" BELIEVE that they have and use 'direct logic'. But ACTUAL 'direct logic' SHOWS that this is NOT possible.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm I doubt if I had 'absolute' proof of anything, I wouldn't convince anyone without having the POWER of position and authority.

If you think or believe that, so called, "POWER of position and authority" 'convinces' people, like 'me', then you are sadly mistaken.

Also, having 'absolute' proof does not necessarily prove to some people but this, as explained, is just because of the self created belief-system, which lies within the human being.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm And given I feel that would be a cheat, even if I magically had these tomorrow, I would be hesitant to try knowing that even if I could prove something, it would be exploited destructively by those I and others would not like.]

Do you KNOW WHY some of 'you' adult human beings do not like each other?

After you ALL work out this fundamental WHY, IF you do, then you could dismantle, and replace, the 'present politics', which 'you', human beings, find yourselves in, in the days of when this is being written.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:03 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:02 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

'Absolute nothing' exists, but only ever in imagination only.

It cannot exist in the imagination directly. It has no content and is 'absolute'.
There IS an 'absolute nothing' though when you deduce it from what we know. It would be prior to time, space, and matter. We cannot point to it (as it points nowhere AND everywhere) but it still has real meaning and needed as a foundation to argue from. We have to postulate it, if you cannot mentally grasp it.

The alternative would require one to prove precisely 'how many' exact factors there exists in Totality, which leads to permanent INCOMPLETENESS. The caveate I mentioned about IF there is an origin, would be cancelled where "absolutely everything" exists in Totality.

Because we cannot rule out anything AND we can and do utilize the meaning of nothing (absolute or relative), absolutely everything has to be defaulted to (or at least postulated). This is about Totality, not simply our particular Universe alone. Ours is an ordered and patterned type of Universe. You cannot avoid the utility of understanding Nothing. It is the bedrock of set theory (as the "empty class/set"). You CAN prove powerful truths by undestanding this. But I don't trust you nor many others could grasp the concept without being able to think on a very extreme deep level and invest in the time ON YOUR OWN incentive.

It is not possible for me to convince you of anything without agreement as to postulates and the means to argue agreed upon. I doubt from talking with you before that I'd get anywhere and feel that I'd be wasting my time. Sorry. I already discovered a lot by understanding this topic and the paradoxes of Zeno have helped express the problems involved quite well.

[When the world is witnessing the likes of the present politics where no amount of direct logic is effective, I doubt if I had 'absolute' proof of anything, I wouldn't convince anyone without having the POWER of position and authority. And given I feel that would be a cheat, even if I magically had these tomorrow, I would be hesitant to try knowing that even if I could prove something, it would be exploited destructively by those I and others would not like.]

Things are sets of attributes and boundary conditions. A thing with no attributes would be nothing, butt also not a thing, so useless.

When you say, "so useless", what is this in regards to and relative to, EXACTLY?

If there was/is nothing, or not a thing, then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, which the words 'useless" or 'use' could be attributed or associated to nor with.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:03 pm "Lack of x" is a definitive set and cannot apply to a lack of attributes. Nothing doesn't mean anything but lack of something specific according to why you're talking about it.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:16 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:16 pm This also indicates that nothing to something is possible

Nothing to something is only possible when something to nothing is equally possible.

Is something to nothing equally possible?

If yes, then will you provide an explanation and/or example?

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:16 am Remove one side of the mental equation and the thought up game ends.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:18 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:03 pm Things are sets of attributes and boundary conditions. A thing with no attributes would be nothing, butt also not a thing, so useless. "Lack of x" is a definitive set and cannot apply to a lack of attributes. Nothing doesn't mean anything but lack of something specific according to why you're talking about it.

I have a definitive proof THAT the state of 'nothing' itself is the only 'thing' that we can deduce reality to on an elementary scale.

I have a definitive proof THAT the state of 'nothing' AND the state of 'something else', combined, is the only 'thing' that we can deduce reality to on an elementary scale.

So, WHY the apparent conflict between your 'definitive proof' and my 'definitive proof'?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:18 pm I needed this as a precursor for my Physics theory with closure.

If you 'needed' something for any 'theory', then that highlights the flaw in the theory.

See, what actually IS does NOT 'need' anything. What IS "speaks for itself" and thus is ALREADY an actual fact.

All 'theories' are just assumptions or guesses about what actually IS. And if a 'theory' NEEDS 'something' for the theory to work, then I suggest throwing the theory out will all of the other guesses and assumptions.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:18 pm If you want an outline of how I do this, I'll want to open a separate thread on it to conserve the ability to index this as MY argument in places like Google searches. [It optimizes a search by looking at the title and the one who opens the thread with priority.]



[Don't bother requoting our whole quote if you insist on plain texting with me. The function of it is only to aid in demonstrating how to quote and nothing more that can't already be done by the 'code' button above (or are you aware of this?). It is hard to parse what you say without running it through another program to do so or it is too hard to bother reading. I'm still confused at why you are doing this given if it lacks security concerns (from my prior challenge to you) nor has any ease on your part, what other purpose does it serve? We also don't get an email notice of someone responding to us while you still have the privilege to receive our comments to your posts. I often skip over those reminders that don't indicate someone 'quoting' me in my email because I'd end up getting my inbox filled with the whole thread where I have to keep opening every last response. Thank you if you chose to comply. ]

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 3:27 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:42 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:31 pm

That's included. I just picked the side after life because at least we are at least considering this given you need to be alive to argue.

How can one argue..who would one argue with if there is nothing known of the other side. How can one have a one sided argument?

I'm hoping you share the meaning of "argument" to be "the formal set of premises that demonstrate a distinct conclusion" (a 'logical' argument).

Under this assumption, obviously one cannot infer THAT this could not be the case should they no longer be alive to judge. But you can infer this from life inductively from experiencing what you define in common with other living things that you see be 'born' and/or 'die'. That is, you 'extend' your deduced experience of others being born and die to your own life. Note that IF we live beyond this life to some other form of life while maintainng the ability to look back, when you 'die', this may be provable TO YOU, should you pop into another world suddenly upon your perception of death. This too can be questioned. But the point about what you DEFINE about something you perceive outside/beyond yourself as having beginnings and ends, at least suggest it POSSIBLE to be true of Totality, even if not necessarily true. The possibility as presented in sample justly assure you THAT it cannot be determined NOT-POSSIBLE, as some above assert.

It is NOT POSSIBLE, logically nor empirically, for Universe/Totality/Everything/ALL-THERE-IS to have a beginning nor an end. This is because of both what the Universe/et cetera is made up of and because of how 'It' works.

This, of course, is True until a logically sound and valid argument is formed, which could prove otherwise.

Because of causality, itself, a beginning or an ending of Totality/et cetera, Itself, is both logically and physically/empirically IMPOSSIBLE.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 11:50 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:56 pm Prove that you cannot die.

He is expressing that if it is possible (a conditional) that something CAN become nothing, such as person who dies and is no longer who they were, then why can it not also be rational to presume the opposite, that we can be born?

I guess there are multiple ways of answering your question - all dependent on what it is that is meant to be born and die...

1) If we look at birth in the conventional way - as the act or process of bearing or bringing forth offspring - then it is a physical process where a new body seems to (apparently) come from "nothing".

'Seems to' and 'apparently' being the VERY operative words here.

What 'seems to' and what is 'apparent' to people are not necessarily what actually IS.

Learning and understanding what 'people' are EXACTLY then this will have far more meaning.

Also, 'trying to' decide, deduce, or argue for whether a person/people are born and die or not is an extremely fruitless task when one does not know what a 'person/people' actually ARE yet.

By the way, a new body is caused, or created, from the coming together of at least two other things. No matter how much something 'seems to' be true or is 'apparently' true, for absolutely EVERY 'thing' it is created, or caused, by the coming together of at least two other things. Except, of course, for the two very fundamental things of the Universe, Itself.

The two things, which are the foundation of the Universe, Itself, exist only because of one other thing. BUT, the two HAVE TO exist together, eternally and infinitely, as there could be NO other way.

It could now be argued that EVERY body is because of the one other thing. So, in a sense, it could be said that EVERY body does "come from nothing", but this is to deep for most, in the days of when this is being written, unless of course there is ANY body who is Truly interested in discovering and learning more here, on this subject?

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 11:50 pm But, as we all know, this is not actually so. A new body doesn't come from nothing, it grows inside the mother's body, it is "made from" the mothers body.

AND from the father's body.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 11:50 pm So... where does the mother's body come from? The simple answer is: from the food the mother is consuming. So... where does the food come from? I guess its pretty clear by now that this chain may be followed back further and further until... until we end up at a point where theoretical (some call it: scientific) ideas postulates that a magical "big bang" happened creating something out of nothing...

Only those who VIEW things from a VERY NARROWED or VERY CLOSED perspective of things would postulate such a thing as this.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 11:50 pm Does this prove that nothing can become something? Not really... its just an idea, a way of attempting to limit "nothing" (infinity) and turn it into "something" (the limited).

This, really very absurd, idea of 'something from nothing' only still exists, in those days when this was being written, because of how the human brain ACTUALLY WORKS.

Also, 'nothing', by itself, or 'absolute nothing' is NOT 'infinity'. As an actual 'absolute nothing' and an 'infinity of nothing' are both a logical and empirical IMPOSSIBILITY.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 11:50 pm 2) If we look at birth as the birth of the separate self, the idea/knowledge of I, then we are dealing with a purely thought based process of birth and death, existence and non existence. Its about the difference between the ideas of nothing (or better: no thing) and something (better: some thing). While these ideas seem to be not identical at all, they are, in truth, uniovular twins. They only exist together, remove one of the twins and the other one will die as well. Its like left and right, up or down, thing and no thing...

This is true. There is only One, which is made up, essentially, of two opposites.

The word 'Uni-verse' exists/came about because of words like uni-ovular, that is; One egg, which is ACTUALLY creating EVERY thing. All of this can be explained and will be soon enough.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 11:50 pm If you wander through a maze where every corner is always a left turn, you might as well say that you are going straight ahead - then again... you turn around by 180deg and suddenly every turn will be a right turn... has left suddenly turned into right? Do both exist? Or none? It depends on how you look at it (how you interpret it)... but in reality you simply walk "straight" ahead (no matter if you label it left or right).

Because the phrase, Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer' is an irrefutable fact, 'it' [EVERY thing] ALL depends on how 'you' LOOK AT 'it'.

By the way, the fact is there is no actual left and right, nor an actual up and down, in thee Universe, Itself. But there is certainly, and obviously, a thing AND a no thing. In fact it could not be any other way.

Its the same with "some thing" and "no thing" - we believe we always see and experience "things", and, at the same time, we believe that we cannot experience "no thing" - meaning: we believe we can only go left - but... in reality you can go neither left nor right, you can only walk straight ahead (one neither experiences things nor does one experience no things).
[/quote]

A few things here:

1. I do NOT believe ANY thing. So, I do NOT believe we always see and experience 'things'.
2. I do NOT see and experience actual 'things' (with an s). I see and experience One thing (without an s) ONLY, but which is composed of two things, namely 'something AND nothing', which can NOT be actually separated, but which is then further labeled by 'you', human beings, into MANY different things (with an s).
3. I can and do experience 'no thing'. If I did not, then I would NOT be able to KNOW what thee Universe actually IS, how thee Universe actually works, and how It is actually created.
4. I experience MANY different things (with an s) in this One and only 'Thing', called 'Life.

'you' might be able to accurately speak for what 'you' see and/or experience, but please refrain from speaking for what 'I' see and experience. If you do not, then you can leave a trail of misrepresentations behind, with a conglomerate of misconceptions and misinterpretations in their path.

I would be most appreciative if 'you' spoke for 'you' only and did not 'try to' speak for 'I'.

AlexW wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 5:49 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 4:25 am You don't come from nothing when you're born and you don't turn into nothing when you die. The pattern changes, that is all. All the same stuff, including energy, still exists, only in different form. Only patterns can begin or end and only then in relation to the purposes we use them for.

Sure, its only an ever changing pattern - some of it is called "I/you" and other patterns are labelled "he/she"...
But there is no owner, no external creator of the pattern (at least none that could be known)

But who AND what the 'Owner' and/or 'Creator' ACTUALLY IS can and in fact is ALREADY KNOWN.

By the way, OBVIOUSLY no 'external' creator, nor 'external' any thing, of the pattern could exist.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 11:50 pm - there is simply the pattern and it seems to be (attempting) to know/explain itself

And, IF the 'pattern', as you so rightly put it, 'seems to be (attempting) to know/explain itself', could actually KNOW thy Self, then one day thee 'Pattern' WILL KNOW Its 'Self', which It ALREADY HAS by the way.

But proving to adult human beings the opposite of what they already BELIEVE is true does not occur instantaneously.

Only when people have been prepared correctly can they then SEE and KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, almost immediately and instantaneously.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:10 am

Dimebag wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:22 pm The name itself implies that there is no such “thing” as “no-thing”.

Thingness does not apply to nothing.

What then is nothing?

Even that statement does not make sense. Nothing isn’t. Is implies thingness.

So nothing is merely negation of thingness?

Yet surely for there to be something it must stand in differentiation with an existent nothing?

Is space nothing?

We call it space like it’s a thing, yet it’s existence is only known due to the lack of thingness.

Physics proposes that even space, the closest thing to nothing, is something, quantum foam, virtual particles popping in and out of existence.

And even space is thought to be composed of “dimensions”. These may or may not actually be real things.

Others propose that space itself is holographic, meaning it is merely a projection which is actually existent on 3 “planes” at right angles which contain information on their surface, and project their information to create a sense of space and thingness.

Under this view, space or nothingness, is the lack of information contained within 3 perpendicular planes.

Nothing can never be known. The known is thingness.

These are all just words trying to get at the ungettable.

Nothing is absence of any thing which make complete sence.

'Nothing is absence of ANY thing' might make complete sense, but this 'nothing' exists in imagination only.

It is not logically possible nor is it empirically possible for there to be an absence of ANY thing, EVER.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:41 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:16 pm The principle of causality (PoC) says that everything has a cause. PoC, however, applies to material things. Nothing is not material. Therefore, PoC does not apply to it.

This also indicates that nothing to something is possible which means that there is no need for God.

How, EXACTLY, does your first three sentences here "also indicate" that 'nothing to something' is possible?

The PoC means that you need an agent to cause, by cause I mean to go from one state of affair to another one.

So, are you saying that to go from one state of affair to another then an agent is needed to cause this?

If yes, then what do you propose is 'that agent'?

But if no, what are you actually saying?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am PoC however does not apply to nothing

Well how was 'nothing' caused, if not by an agent?

What has caused the 'nothing' to exist, which does exist?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am which means that you don't need an agent for going from one state of affair, nothing in here, to another one, something in here.

To me, you appear to make "conclusions", from the most illogical sense of reasoning.

You "argument" goes, and correct me if I am wrong here:

P1. To cause the action of going from one state of affair to another state of affair an agent is needed.
P2. Principle of causality does not apply to nothing.
C. Therefore, no agent is needed for going from nothing (in here) to something (in here).

Is this "argument"?

If no, then what is your "argument".

But if yes, then:
Premise 1 makes sense to me.
Premise 2 is NOT based on ANY actual evidence, which I have been exposed to YET. So, if you have ANY evidence, then please bring it forward.
Your conclusion is based on some ASSUMPTION that something (some thing) was created from absolutely nothing [no thing], which again I NOT been privy to ANY such evidence.

In fact from what I have 'observed', seen and experienced, the EXACT OPPOSITE is true.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:41 am And, how does all of this then conclude that there is no need for God? How do you KNOW that 'God' [whatever you imagine that to be] was not needed to turn 'nothing' into 'something'?

That is argued in the previous comment.

Was it REALLY?

From what I have observed in your comments is just you expressing your OWN BELIEFS in many different ways as though they are already true, right, and correct. From what I have seen in your comments you are just 'trying' absolutely any thing, which you think, or believe, backs up and supports your already held BELIEFS.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:41 am What appears to me here is you are just proposing absolutely anything, which you think, and hope, will back up and support your already held beliefs.

For example, WHY even 'presume' that there was 'nothing' before 'something' came along?

That leads to regress which is not acceptable.

In 'who's' "world" is 'regress' NOT acceptable?

If 'you' or "others" can not arrive at a useful conclusion, then so be it. But through 'regression' ALL the meaningful ANSWERS become REVEALED.

By the way, what does 'regress' actually mean, to you?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:41 am There are also to many other numerous flaws and faults that l did not even mention in your thinking here.

What are them?

To me, what 'they' are, are:

1. You BELIEVE, without ANY actual PROOF, that causality only applies to material things.

2. So, EVERY thing else you write here, in this thread, is based solely on only 'THAT' what you ASSUME and BELIEVE is true, and NOT on what IS actually True.

3. Your ARGUMENTS end up being unsound and/or invalid because of 1 and 2, which can be CLEARLY SEEN in your opening post here, in this thread.

4. Your "CONCLUSION" in your opening post that your own first three sentences "also indicates that nothing to something is possible which means that there is no need for God", is completely and utterly absurd and irrational.

5. You have CONCLUDED that "nothing to something is possible" based on nothing but your own ALREADY GAINED BELIEFS.

6. And then to 'automatically' ARRIVE AT and CONCLUDE that this then MEANS there is no need for God is just illogical to the extreme.

So, what the flaws and faults are, in your thinking here, is;
The ASSUMPTIONS you make, and the CONCLUSIONS you arrive at, come from the BELIEFS you already have.
You then use your own BELIEFS, ONLY, to back up and support your own newly formed ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS, which were obtained previously from ill-gotten BELIEFS in the first place.

The MAIN flaw and fault in your thinking here is;

You use your OWN ill-gotten BELIEFS to LOOK AT and SEE the "world' from, which is how you form your ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS, which is a form of 'circular reasoning', or what could also be called and labeled as a form of 'regression', itself.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:23 am

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:16 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:16 pm This also indicates that nothing to something is possible

Nothing to something is only possible when something to nothing is equally possible.

True. In fact, change is not possible if something to nothing was not possible.

How does this 'logically' follow?

Something to nothing has NOT yet occurred, unless some proof is provided. But until then 'change', itself, NOT 'not possible'.

Change is not just possible but is in fact impossible to NOT happen.

There could not, logically nor empirically, exist 'not change'. But 'something to nothing' has still NOT occurred, as 'something to nothing' is just NOT logically and empirically IMPOSSIBLE as 'nothing to something' is.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:23 am To elaborate think of a change, X to Y. X and Y cannot coexist since you cannot have change.

Provide examples of what X actually is and what Y actually is to SHOW how X and Y, supposedly, cannot coexist?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:23 am Therefore, X has to vanishes (what you are suggesting, something to nothing) in order to live room for Y to take place (which I am suggesting, nothing to something).

The word 'vanishing' does NOT necessarily mean 'into nothing'. The word 'vanishing' here is just referring to 'change', itself.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:23 am The order in the a universe however requires a mind.

If the order in thee, One and only, Universe, supposedly, requires a, so called, "mind", then is this "mind", the 'agent', which you refer to as being needed to 'cause' or to make happen from 'going from one state of affair to another state of affair'?

And, if this "mind" is what is 'needed' 'to cause', which by the way is the same as 'to create', then what does this "mind" 'need', or 'require'?

Who and/or what is the owner or controller of this "mind", which supposedly 'the order in the Universe' REQUIRES?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:47 am

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 11:50 pm While these ideas seem to be not identical at all, they are, in truth, uniovular twins. They only exist together, remove one of the twins and the other one will die as well.

Where do people get these faulty beliefs?

The EXACT SAME place 'you' get 'your' faulty beliefs.

That is; from EACH OTHER.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:47 am I happen to be one of those 'uniovular' twins [ie, 'identical'] and of a family of a few of them. One of my older twin sisters died. The other is still alive.

You must not of been AWARE that the 'uniovular twins' phrase was in relation to the idea of 'nothing' [no thing] and to the idea of 'something' [some thing] and the phrase was about how those two 'have to' coexist together. The phrase was NOT in relation to two human being twins, nor in fact in relation to absolutely ANY thing else. Well from what I ascertained from what was actually written and said.

Out of curiosity you wrote you happen to be one of a "few" set of identical twins in a family, so how many set of identical twin siblings do/did you have?