Philosophy Now Forum

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:00 pm Is the word or "subject matter" nature a word for everything? Thusly, should everything be a synonym for the word nature?

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:00 pm Is the word or "subject matter" nature a word for everything? Thusly, should everything be a synonym for the word nature?

nothing wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:18 pm

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:00 pm Is the word or "subject matter" nature a word for everything? Thusly, should everything be a synonym for the word nature?

Well the Hebrew word for 'GOD' as elohim has a gematria equaling 'nature'.
The same word contains both a 1D electric 'el' component and a 2D magnetic 'im' component
such to capture the essence of image and likeness, male and female, yang and yin, space and time etc.

However one can as easily let 'all' serve the same, whereas 'not' serves the negation of the same same.
This reveals a binary of definitions: {IS∞NOT} which, when incorporating 'all' becomes {ALL∞NOT}.

These serve as null-boundary universal operators. "To be... or not to be. That is the..." principle discretion.
Add in complimentary null-boundary universal roots {CAUSATION∞CESSATION} and you have yourself means of
monistic retroduction: to use the operators to derive any universal roots as desired, say, knowledge and belief:
{to KNOW}{ ALL (thus) NOT }{to BELIEVE}... approaches all-knowing
{to BELIEVE}{ ALL (thus) NOT }{to KNOW}... captures all belief-based ignorance(s) {CAUSING}/sustaining and/or
otherwise impeding on the {CESSATION} of {ALL} forms of human suffering.

If taking 'everything' to be 'all' while granting the negation as 'not' accomplishes the same.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:26 pm

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:00 pm Is the word or "subject matter" nature a word for everything? Thusly, should everything be a synonym for the word nature?

Everything is a tautology of the single source, both as a truth value where existence alone is proof and as the variation of a single phenomenon through many.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:07 pm And yet.. the standard view, and the staunch view of Mamonides, he who confontef the heathen hoard of the "Peripeyetics," is that G-d created the world ex nihilio. Suggesting that the nothing is not G-d.

nothing wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 4:32 pm

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:07 pm And yet.. the standard view, and the staunch view of Mamonides, he who confontef the heathen hoard of the "Peripeyetics," is that G-d created the world ex nihilio. Suggesting that the nothing is not G-d.

What exactly is the "standard view"? Is not Mamonides dead?
What is 'confontef'? Do you mean confronted?
Why are you using 'G-d'? Do you observe "protecting" such a word/name?

G-d could not have created anything "ex nihilo" and never is that imparted in the book of Genesis. The earth existed (albeit was tohu v'bohu) and darkness existed, and an abyss was present, and the wind/spirit of G-d moved upon the face of the existent abyss. And saying G-d 'Let be: light,' and light was. Etc.

This notion that G-d created anything ex nihilo would entail denoting all that is described above as a constituency of ex nihilo, which excludes itself from being "ex nihilo" as even the earth existed, if even not of any physical form. Why should one believe physical manifestation is the only 'state' of what one can call 'all'? Suppose there is a physical and metaphysical 'cosmos' wherein velocity (motion, physical) and energy (will, metaphysical) are bound reciprocates? As above, so below, you know?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:26 pm

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:00 pm Is the word or "subject matter" nature a word for everything? Thusly, should everything be a synonym for the word nature?

Everything is a tautology of the single source, both as a truth value where existence alone is proof and as the variation of a single phenomenon through many.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:12 pm

nothing wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 4:32 pm

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:07 pm And yet.. the standard view, and the staunch view of Mamonides, he who confontef the heathen hoard of the "Peripeyetics," is that G-d created the world ex nihilio. Suggesting that the nothing is not G-d.

What exactly is the "standard view"? Is not Mamonides dead?
What is 'confontef'? Do you mean confronted?
Why are you using 'G-d'? Do you observe "protecting" such a word/name?

G-d could not have created anything "ex nihilo" and never is that imparted in the book of Genesis. The earth existed (albeit was tohu v'bohu) and darkness existed, and an abyss was present, and the wind/spirit of G-d moved upon the face of the existent abyss. And saying G-d 'Let be: light,' and light was. Etc.

This notion that G-d created anything ex nihilo would entail denoting all that is described above as a constituency of ex nihilo, which excludes itself from being "ex nihilo" as even the earth existed, if even not of any physical form. Why should one believe physical manifestation is the only 'state' of what one can call 'all'? Suppose there is a physical and metaphysical 'cosmos' wherein velocity (motion, physical) and energy (will, metaphysical) are bound reciprocates? As above, so below, you know?

Creation Ex nihilo could occur through a voiding of void synonymous to the negation of negation.

This double negation, or voiding of voiding, would reflect everything stemming from a single point under the principle of explosion or the big bang.

From contradiction anything occurs, this including the totality of being itself.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 12:33 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:26 pm

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:00 pm Is the word or "subject matter" nature a word for everything? Thusly, should everything be a synonym for the word nature?

Everything is a tautology of the single source, both as a truth value where existence alone is proof and as the variation of a single phenomenon through many.

It would be hard to understand anything without distinctions. Such as nature distinguished from convention or law. So, you claim man should die in ignorance?

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 12:35 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:12 pm

nothing wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 4:32 pm

What exactly is the "standard view"? Is not Mamonides dead?
What is 'confontef'? Do you mean confronted?
Why are you using 'G-d'? Do you observe "protecting" such a word/name?

G-d could not have created anything "ex nihilo" and never is that imparted in the book of Genesis. The earth existed (albeit was tohu v'bohu) and darkness existed, and an abyss was present, and the wind/spirit of G-d moved upon the face of the existent abyss. And saying G-d 'Let be: light,' and light was. Etc.

This notion that G-d created anything ex nihilo would entail denoting all that is described above as a constituency of ex nihilo, which excludes itself from being "ex nihilo" as even the earth existed, if even not of any physical form. Why should one believe physical manifestation is the only 'state' of what one can call 'all'? Suppose there is a physical and metaphysical 'cosmos' wherein velocity (motion, physical) and energy (will, metaphysical) are bound reciprocates? As above, so below, you know?

Creation Ex nihilo could occur through a voiding of void synonymous to the negation of negation.

This double negation, or voiding of voiding, would reflect everything stemming from a single point under the principle of explosion or the big bang.

From contradiction anything occurs, this including the totality of being itself.

But, there is only a void in the comments on the second day looking back at the first. Seemingly to say, the abyss was with specific distinctive features.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 1:49 am

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 12:33 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:26 pm
Everything is a tautology of the single source, both as a truth value where existence alone is proof and as the variation of a single phenomenon through many.

It would be hard to understand anything without distinctions. Such as nature distinguished from convention or law. So, you claim man should die in ignorance?

Distinctions are definitions, definition is the relationship between parts, the relationship between parts is an act of individuation. The nature of knowledge is a process of individuation inherent within both man's capacity of reasoning and his or her mode of being.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 1:55 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 1:49 am

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 12:33 am

It would be hard to understand anything without distinctions. Such as nature distinguished from convention or law. So, you claim man should die in ignorance?

Distinctions are definitions, definition is the relationship between parts, the relationship between parts is an act of individuation. The nature of knowledge is a process of individuation inherent within both man's capacity of reasoning and his or her mode of being.

So, you admit definitions exsist?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 2:00 am

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 1:55 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 1:49 am
Distinctions are definitions, definition is the relationship between parts, the relationship between parts is an act of individuation. The nature of knowledge is a process of individuation inherent within both man's capacity of reasoning and his or her mode of being.

So, you admit definitions exsist?

All variations from a single source necessitates all variations as a definition of that single source.