Philosophy Now Forum

To prove nothing is to prove nothing at all thus no proof exists. The absence of proof for nothing is necessitated by the nature of nothing at including proof as fundamentally nothing. Considering there is no proof for "nothing" nothing cannot be disproven either given an absence of proof for nothing is in itself nothing.


Nothing can neither be proven nor disproven but rather taken axiomatically as this axiomatic nature reflects the same absence of form in which a form impresses itself upon. Axioms are taken on nothing, given no thought is evident behind the axiom for it is strictly taken "as is" without anything behind it. The axiom is rooted in nothing thus nothing is axiomatic.

This axiomatic nature can neither be proven or disproven.

Any/all considerations of "nothing" in isolation is errant, as "nothing" is but one side of a two-sided coin.

Just as the presence of yang is required for the presence of yin (by way of contrast),
"something" is required for any/all considerations of "nothing" (by way of the same).

What actually matters however is not the aspects themselves, but the nature of the relation between the two.
Both "nothing" and "something" (as aspects of a polar binary) share in a common ground (that is): perpetual conjugation.

To consider one aspect in isolation (as if: removed) from the other is akin to ignoring one pole of a dipole (-/+).
In any event: there is never need/inclining to "prove nothing" as nothing naturally relies on something (to be).

Instead of "to prove nothing..." it should be "to prove something..." & truth-by-way-of-negation yields "to prove something (is) not...".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:03 am To prove nothing is to prove nothing at all thus no proof exists. The absence of proof for nothing is necessitated by the nature of nothing at including proof as fundamentally nothing. Considering there is no proof for "nothing" nothing cannot be disproven either given an absence of proof for nothing is in itself nothing.


Nothing can neither be proven nor disproven but rather taken axiomatically as this axiomatic nature reflects the same absence of form in which a form impresses itself upon. Axioms are taken on nothing, given no thought is evident behind the axiom for it is strictly taken "as is" without anything behind it. The axiom is rooted in nothing thus nothing is axiomatic.

This axiomatic nature can neither be proven or disproven.

I disagree. But it requires reflection on meaning. We exist as 'something' and so are unable to literally witness 'nothing' in a directly empirical way. But logically it can be defined FROM what we do know. For us, 'nothing' can be defined by something that is 'empty' of a particular something or an inversed operation on something posited, like that X + (-X) = 0. It becomes 'defining' or tautological and no mathematical reasoning can exist without it. In essence, it is 'relative' in this respect.

As for absolutely nothing, our ONLY difficulty with this by most humans is that 'existence' begs time. We also don't have proof of 'time' if you were to technically speak of its existence. However, there is a non-time based meaning to the concept that can be defined by LIMITS (Calculus). Since logic itself is 'empirical' when considering questioning generalities, forms, or absolutes, "nothing", relative or absolute, is still 'empirical' INDIRECTLY.

So, to that member who asserts his or herself, "nothing", ...

nothing wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:57 pm Any/all considerations of "nothing" in isolation is errant, as "nothing" is but one side of a two-sided coin.

Just as the presence of yang is required for the presence of yin (by way of contrast),
"something" is required for any/all considerations of "nothing" (by way of the same).

What actually matters however is not the aspects themselves, but the nature of the relation between the two.
Both "nothing" and "something" (as aspects of a polar binary) share in a common ground (that is): perpetual conjugation.

To consider one aspect in isolation (as if: removed) from the other is akin to ignoring one pole of a dipole (-/+).
In any event: there is never need/inclining to "prove nothing" as nothing naturally relies on something (to be).

Instead of "to prove nothing..." it should be "to prove something..." & truth-by-way-of-negation yields "to prove something (is) not...".

...
I disagree that we cannot infer an absolute nothing. But it has to be at the absolute level of "Totality" (not merely our empirical universe). I argue that if we are to be appropriately fair to reasoning, we cannot assume that an Absolute Infinite and continuous whole would 'exist' [or 'be' as a state] without it including absolutely nothing in meaning. Any other in-between interpretion of finite concepts as ALL that is real is biased to our impossiblity of existing infinitely either. In fact, such finite interpretations are more dubious in contexts of reasoning and why we get limitations to closure when speaking about perfect completeness. [Incompleteness Theorem, for instance proves our limitations due to our own limits empirically.]

I'm not religious. As such I infer 'absolutely nothing' from postulating 'absolutely everything' with the caveat that this is about Totality, not merely any particular Universe, such as ours. Even for those who are religious who place their "God" there as a Total source of all, it acts merely as an empty variable that begs is own source infinitely. This 'infinity' suffices to justify postulating it on the level of Totality. Then we still have "Absolutely Nothing" as the only most UNIVERSAL concept shared of absoutely ANYTHING.

If you still have a problem with this, resort back to Calculus limits that suffice to define such a concept as that 'limit' to the most primal source of all things. The most common denominator of anything IS 'nothing' and why set theories' use of the "empty set" uses it, whether postulated or not. Most such systems have 'undefined' terms, of which Class (or Set by traditional versions) are just such. That is, they are not 'postulated' but have to be expressed by defining it through postulates regarding the LANGUAGE that refers to reality.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:03 am To prove nothing is to prove nothing at all thus no proof exists. The absence of proof for nothing is necessitated by the nature of nothing at including proof as fundamentally nothing. Considering there is no proof for "nothing" nothing cannot be disproven either given an absence of proof for nothing is in itself nothing.


Nothing can neither be proven nor disproven but rather taken axiomatically as this axiomatic nature reflects the same absence of form in which a form impresses itself upon. Axioms are taken on nothing, given no thought is evident behind the axiom for it is strictly taken "as is" without anything behind it. The axiom is rooted in nothing thus nothing is axiomatic.

This axiomatic nature can neither be proven or disproven.

An axiom is not an assumption. An axiom is an axiom because to deny it is a self-contradiction. One must assume the axiom is true in order to formulate a denial of the axiom.

For example. The fact of existence is axiomatic. "There is existence." One cannot deny existence without assuming the existence the denier. If there were no existence there would be no one to deny it.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 11:09 pm ...
I disagree that we cannot infer an absolute nothing. But it has to be at the absolute level of "Totality" (not merely our empirical universe). I argue that if we are to be appropriately fair to reasoning, we cannot assume that an Absolute Infinite and continuous whole would 'exist' [or 'be' as a state] without it including absolutely nothing in meaning. Any other in-between interpretion of finite concepts as ALL that is real is biased to our impossiblity of existing infinitely either. In fact, such finite interpretations are more dubious in contexts of reasoning and why we get limitations to closure when speaking about perfect completeness. [Incompleteness Theorem, for instance proves our limitations due to our own limits empirically.]

I did not suggest we can not infer an absolute nothing, to be clear.
We can infer an "absolute nothing" but not in isolation from an imperative "absolute everything" counter-part.
Such a dichotomy precedes any/all considerations of material/universal context(s).
In other words: they transcend the nature of physicality entirely (ie. our "empirical universe").
I don't quite know what you mean by "Totality" and/or "Absolute Infinite".

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 11:09 pm I'm not religious. As such I infer 'absolutely nothing' from postulating 'absolutely everything' with the caveat that this is about Totality, not merely any particular Universe, such as ours. Even for those who are religious who place their "God" there as a Total source of all, it acts merely as an empty variable that begs is own source infinitely. This 'infinity' suffices to justify postulating it on the level of Totality. Then we still have "Absolutely Nothing" as the only most UNIVERSAL concept shared of absoutely ANYTHING.

Hence why I stated we can not consider "absolutely nothing" in isolation from "absolutely everything".
That which is & that which is not is (as) a binary of definition: to be, or not to be.
That is the question because it is a universal binary of definite state(s) whose internal relationship is conjugative.
This conjugative (+/-) nature is what precedes any/all considerations of contexts (& applies to all energy nonetheless).

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 11:09 pm If you still have a problem with this, resort back to Calculus limits that suffice to define such a concept as that 'limit' to the most primal source of all things. The most common denominator of anything IS 'nothing' and why set theories' use of the "empty set" uses it, whether postulated or not. Most such systems have 'undefined' terms, of which Class (or Set by traditional versions) are just such. That is, they are not 'postulated' but have to be expressed by defining it through postulates regarding the LANGUAGE that refers to reality.

No problems here. I find calculus esp. limits to be broken and reject a lot of it.
After all: mathematicians do not even know how to properly measure a circle.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 1:18 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:03 am To prove nothing is to prove nothing at all thus no proof exists. The absence of proof for nothing is necessitated by the nature of nothing at including proof as fundamentally nothing. Considering there is no proof for "nothing" nothing cannot be disproven either given an absence of proof for nothing is in itself nothing.


Nothing can neither be proven nor disproven but rather taken axiomatically as this axiomatic nature reflects the same absence of form in which a form impresses itself upon. Axioms are taken on nothing, given no thought is evident behind the axiom for it is strictly taken "as is" without anything behind it. The axiom is rooted in nothing thus nothing is axiomatic.

This axiomatic nature can neither be proven or disproven.

An axiom is not an assumption. An axiom is an axiom because to deny it is a self-contradiction. One must assume the axiom is true in order to formulate a denial of the axiom.

For example. The fact of existence is axiomatic. "There is existence." One cannot deny existence without assuming the existence the denier. If there were no existence there would be no one to deny it.

Axioms ARE assumptions. They are 'assumptions' about a logical system itself.

nothing wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 2:43 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 11:09 pm ...
I disagree that we cannot infer an absolute nothing. But it has to be at the absolute level of "Totality" (not merely our empirical universe). I argue that if we are to be appropriately fair to reasoning, we cannot assume that an Absolute Infinite and continuous whole would 'exist' [or 'be' as a state] without it including absolutely nothing in meaning. Any other in-between interpretion of finite concepts as ALL that is real is biased to our impossiblity of existing infinitely either. In fact, such finite interpretations are more dubious in contexts of reasoning and why we get limitations to closure when speaking about perfect completeness. [Incompleteness Theorem, for instance proves our limitations due to our own limits empirically.]

I did not suggest we can not infer an absolute nothing, to be clear.
We can infer an "absolute nothing" but not in isolation from an imperative "absolute everything" counter-part.
Such a dichotomy precedes any/all considerations of material/universal context(s).
In other words: they transcend the nature of physicality entirely (ie. our "empirical universe").
I don't quite know what you mean by "Totality" and/or "Absolute Infinite".

I use the term, "Totality" to refer to all reality without bias to our specific Universe. I've seen this used similarly in works of others through time too. It unbiases the possibility of multiple universes, people's religious inclusions of places like heavens or hells, their god(s), etc. The term, "universe" is not sufficient these days because of so many interpretations. "Cosmos" might appropriately reference our particular physical Universe as many in science use it today. But without knowing that this is the only one, "Totality" suffices to cover absolutely everything, and what I meant by "Absolute Infinite". My capitalization is only to give it a proper reference, usually for my own efforts, but does not imply anything more. So I try to capitalize specific unique concepts where I can. [I'm not always consistent when speaking colloqually here on forums though.]

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 11:09 pm I'm not religious. As such I infer 'absolutely nothing' from postulating 'absolutely everything' with the caveat that this is about Totality, not merely any particular Universe, such as ours. Even for those who are religious who place their "God" there as a Total source of all, it acts merely as an empty variable that begs is own source infinitely. This 'infinity' suffices to justify postulating it on the level of Totality. Then we still have "Absolutely Nothing" as the only most UNIVERSAL concept shared of absoutely ANYTHING.

Hence why I stated we can not consider "absolutely nothing" in isolation from "absolutely everything".
That which is & that which is not is (as) a binary of definition: to be, or not to be.
That is the question because it is a universal binary of definite state(s) whose internal relationship is conjugative.
This conjugative (+/-) nature is what precedes any/all considerations of contexts (& applies to all energy nonetheless).

If you are not familiar with my opinion on science, I disagree with the literal Big Bang interpretation and favor a Steady State version. [Do not confuse this with the 'Static' interpretation prior to Hubble's discovery of an expanding Universe.]

To aide in my own theory, I needed to go deep into logic and an 'absolute nothing' is needed to argue first principles....but OF 'Totality' more specifically, so that one can recognize that 'nothing' lies IN this concept. There is no 'outside' of Totality by my definition. It helps to deal with contradiction and paradoxes.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 11:09 pm If you still have a problem with this, resort back to Calculus limits that suffice to define such a concept as that 'limit' to the most primal source of all things. The most common denominator of anything IS 'nothing' and why set theories' use of the "empty set" uses it, whether postulated or not. Most such systems have 'undefined' terms, of which Class (or Set by traditional versions) are just such. That is, they are not 'postulated' but have to be expressed by defining it through postulates regarding the LANGUAGE that refers to reality.

No problems here. I find calculus esp. limits to be broken and reject a lot of it.
After all: mathematicians do not even know how to properly measure a circle.

I believe that I meant this for Eodnhoj7 but was quoting both of you in that post. He was questioning how he may be in error and so this exercise is useful,...especially if one is not familiar with Calculus's use of limits. I suggest taking this challenge for you too. I thought of this as a means to visually demonstrate why we need 'approach' definitions for differentials (division by zero, infinity, etc.)

I'm not sure of your own skepticism regarding Calculus. As to math limitations about things like deal with 'ideal' objects, like circles, I think it does an excellent job. But how you learned Calculus matters. I found many texts harder to accept in how they teach. For the BEST, I recommend anything by Stewart:

https://www.stewartcalculus.com/

His detail helps you understand motive and connects the other maths with this in a way that, ...if you are cautious and patient to read everything, you can understand the PROOFS for Calculus clearly, including the reasons about some of the philosophical factors related. Of course his newer texts get more involved and he apparently split up some of his prior material into distinct texts. If it appears too cluttery, look for some of his older works. [I find a lot of the University texts get TOO colorful and distracting compared to some of the older ones prior to advanced computer and calculator aides he's added in the years. But if this is not a problem for you, I recommend these for its added depths.]

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 7:40 pm Axioms ARE assumptions. They are 'assumptions' about a logical system itself.

Logical positivist nonsense!

If that were true, no axiom would be worth considering and as long as you hold that view you will never be able to reason correctly. You certainly didn't think that up yourself.

In reason, nothing can be assumed. If you begin with a baseless premise (an assumption) you end with a meaningless conclusion.

You don't have to call it an axiom but, "A is A," is not an assumption. It is a statement a fundamental principle. It has to be true because nothing can be what it is and also not be what it is. In logic, "A is A," is the fundamental axiom, whatever you choose to call it.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 9:48 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 7:40 pm Axioms ARE assumptions. They are 'assumptions' about a logical system itself.

Logical positivist nonsense!

If that were true, no axiom would be worth considering and as long as you hold that view you will never be able to reason correctly. You certainly didn't think that up yourself.

In reason, nothing can be assumed. If you begin with a baseless premise (an assumption) you end with a meaningless conclusion.

You don't have to call it an axiom but, "A is A," is not an assumption. It is a statement a fundamental principle. It has to be true because nothing can be what it is and also not be what it is. In logic, "A is A," is the fundamental axiom, whatever you choose to call it.

You are not looking at the logic here. "Axioms" are also called "postulates' which might help expose the distinction. "Postulate" means to "(sup)pose something ahead of time".["post", just as this particular segment I am commenting in, is an old past tense term, of which we now say, "posed".] This is to contrast it with 'pro'-posing an assumption later within the system. The system of logic one uses still requires setting up 'rules' of which those agreeing to use, have to assume are correct prior to using it as a type of mechanism for measuring other particular things with. Axioms/postulates, are just UNIVERSAL to those convening to argue. The particular statements 'assumed' true using the system too could have been called, postulates or axioms. But we restricted those terms for the system, just as a computer language RESERVES the special set of terms of SYSTEM (the computer language's compiler language) prior to USING the language in writing programs.

"Axiom" (or "postulate") have evolved to become "reserved" terms for assumptions of the language in this way, even though they all relate to the same meaning at its core. An 'assumption' would be like a particular variable in a program versus, say the terms, 'variable' [var] or 'constant'[const] that a language uses to initiate or assign the progammer's particular made up 'variables' or 'constants'.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 10:10 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 9:48 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 7:40 pm Axioms ARE assumptions. They are 'assumptions' about a logical system itself.

Logical positivist nonsense!

If that were true, no axiom would be worth considering and as long as you hold that view you will never be able to reason correctly. You certainly didn't think that up yourself.

In reason, nothing can be assumed. If you begin with a baseless premise (an assumption) you end with a meaningless conclusion.

You don't have to call it an axiom but, "A is A," is not an assumption. It is a statement a fundamental principle. It has to be true because nothing can be what it is and also not be what it is. In logic, "A is A," is the fundamental axiom, whatever you choose to call it.

You are not looking at the logic here. "Axioms" are also called "postulates' which might help expose the distinction. "Postulate" means to "(sup)pose something ahead of time".["post", just as this particular segment I am commenting in, is an old past tense term, of which we now say, "posed".] This is to contrast it with 'pro'-posing an assumption later within the system. The system of logic one uses still requires setting up 'rules' of which those agreeing to use, have to assume are correct prior to using it as a type of mechanism for measuring other particular things with. Axioms/postulates, are just UNIVERSAL to those convening to argue. The particular statements 'assumed' true using the system too could have been called, postulates or axioms. But we restricted those terms for the system, just as a computer language RESERVES the special set of terms of SYSTEM (the computer language's compiler language) prior to USING the language in writing programs.

"Axiom" (or "postulate") have evolved to become "reserved" terms for assumptions of the language in this way, even though they all relate to the same meaning at its core. An 'assumption' would be like a particular variable in a program versus, say the terms, 'variable' [var] or 'constant'[const] that a language uses to initiate or assign the progammer's particular made up 'variables' or 'constants'.

Programmers have usurped many terms which have very different meanings in philosophy they do not have in computer programming, such as, "syntax," and, "logic," which is only a method, not logic in the philosophical sense.

I don't care how you choose to use those terms, but while you are at it, you might also want to consider the terms, corollary, and, "theorem," for their original philosophical and mathematical (geometry especially) meanings.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 10:32 pm Programmers have usurped many terms which have very different meanings in philosophy they do not have in computer programming, such as, "syntax," and, "logic," which is only a method, not logic in the philosophical sense.

I don't care how you choose to use those terms, but while you are at it, you might also want to consider the terms, corollary, and, "theorem," for their original philosophical and mathematical (geometry especially) meanings.

Sorry, the examples I used for comparing computer languages is only valuable if you've programmed before, something I just 'assumed' that you might have known given most discussing logic have some programming experience.

A "theorem" is a proven conclusion within a system but based on the assumptions of the particular argument. They CAN be used later as premises in new arguments that are 'not assumed' [though all theorems, when traced back to arguments with theorems that have no other theorems in it have ONLY 'assumptions' that all other arguments using them rely on.

"Corollary" is just an extension of a theorem that happens to follow in context to other theorems or assumptions. A "lemma" is an aside form of theorem or corollary, used mostly in math only, that has only useful conclusions with respect to proving some other theorem, but on its own may not make motivational sense.

They are all related but just add some contextual meaning to help separate context in the same way. Axioms are used to as 'rule type assumptions' for logic systems, which include geometry and math, like one might have 'rules' for a game. Then within the game, an action in play is a particular kind of 'assumption'. But it would be awkward to use in that context. Instead, we might call it a 'possible move'. The 'assumptions' used within a system's argument DON'T have to be true: they are 'contingent'; the 'assumptions' of the logic system [Mathematical Calculus, Algebra, Geometry, as separate system examples] (its axioms) are 'necessary'. This is what I think you rationally mean and recognize as distinct. It is otherwise awkward to say what we assume as necessary as 'assumed' and so I get what you mean. But they are all still 'assumptions' in a larger context. You don't HAVE to play the game of Euclidean Geometry, for instance. But if you do, then those axioms HAVE to be assumed necessary.

nothing wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:57 pm Any/all considerations of "nothing" in isolation is errant, as "nothing" is but one side of a two-sided coin.

Just as the presence of yang is required for the presence of yin (by way of contrast),
"something" is required for any/all considerations of "nothing" (by way of the same).

What actually matters however is not the aspects themselves, but the nature of the relation between the two.
Both "nothing" and "something" (as aspects of a polar binary) share in a common ground (that is): perpetual conjugation.

To consider one aspect in isolation (as if: removed) from the other is akin to ignoring one pole of a dipole (-/+).
In any event: there is never need/inclining to "prove nothing" as nothing naturally relies on something (to be).

Instead of "to prove nothing..." it should be "to prove something..." & truth-by-way-of-negation yields "to prove something (is) not...".

To place nothing as part of a two sided coin, ie one side, is to equate nothing to something thus it is no longer nothing.

Dually I stated nothing can neither be proven or disproven. To prove nothing is to prove nothing thus an absence of proof exists as nothing cannot be proven. To disprove nothing is to disprove nothing thus an absence of disproof exists as nothing cannot be disproven for it is nothing.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 11:09 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:03 am To prove nothing is to prove nothing at all thus no proof exists. The absence of proof for nothing is necessitated by the nature of nothing at including proof as fundamentally nothing. Considering there is no proof for "nothing" nothing cannot be disproven either given an absence of proof for nothing is in itself nothing.


Nothing can neither be proven nor disproven but rather taken axiomatically as this axiomatic nature reflects the same absence of form in which a form impresses itself upon. Axioms are taken on nothing, given no thought is evident behind the axiom for it is strictly taken "as is" without anything behind it. The axiom is rooted in nothing thus nothing is axiomatic.

This axiomatic nature can neither be proven or disproven.

I disagree. But it requires reflection on meaning. We exist as 'something' and so are unable to literally witness 'nothing' in a directly empirical way. But logically it can be defined FROM what we do know. For us, 'nothing' can be defined by something that is 'empty' of a particular something or an inversed operation on something posited, like that X + (-X) = 0. It becomes 'defining' or tautological and no mathematical reasoning can exist without it. In essence, it is 'relative' in this respect.

As for absolutely nothing, our ONLY difficulty with this by most humans is that 'existence' begs time. We also don't have proof of 'time' if you were to technically speak of its existence. However, there is a non-time based meaning to the concept that can be defined by LIMITS (Calculus). Since logic itself is 'empirical' when considering questioning generalities, forms, or absolutes, "nothing", relative or absolute, is still 'empirical' INDIRECTLY.

So, to that member who asserts his or herself, "nothing", ...

nothing wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:57 pm Any/all considerations of "nothing" in isolation is errant, as "nothing" is but one side of a two-sided coin.

Just as the presence of yang is required for the presence of yin (by way of contrast),
"something" is required for any/all considerations of "nothing" (by way of the same).

What actually matters however is not the aspects themselves, but the nature of the relation between the two.
Both "nothing" and "something" (as aspects of a polar binary) share in a common ground (that is): perpetual conjugation.

To consider one aspect in isolation (as if: removed) from the other is akin to ignoring one pole of a dipole (-/+).
In any event: there is never need/inclining to "prove nothing" as nothing naturally relies on something (to be).

Instead of "to prove nothing..." it should be "to prove something..." & truth-by-way-of-negation yields "to prove something (is) not...".

...
I disagree that we cannot infer an absolute nothing. But it has to be at the absolute level of "Totality" (not merely our empirical universe). I argue that if we are to be appropriately fair to reasoning, we cannot assume that an Absolute Infinite and continuous whole would 'exist' [or 'be' as a state] without it including absolutely nothing in meaning. Any other in-between interpretion of finite concepts as ALL that is real is biased to our impossiblity of existing infinitely either. In fact, such finite interpretations are more dubious in contexts of reasoning and why we get limitations to closure when speaking about perfect completeness. [Incompleteness Theorem, for instance proves our limitations due to our own limits empirically.]

I'm not religious. As such I infer 'absolutely nothing' from postulating 'absolutely everything' with the caveat that this is about Totality, not merely any particular Universe, such as ours. Even for those who are religious who place their "God" there as a Total source of all, it acts merely as an empty variable that begs is own source infinitely. This 'infinity' suffices to justify postulating it on the level of Totality. Then we still have "Absolutely Nothing" as the only most UNIVERSAL concept shared of absoutely ANYTHING.

If you still have a problem with this, resort back to Calculus limits that suffice to define such a concept as that 'limit' to the most primal source of all things. The most common denominator of anything IS 'nothing' and why set theories' use of the "empty set" uses it, whether postulated or not. Most such systems have 'undefined' terms, of which Class (or Set by traditional versions) are just such. That is, they are not 'postulated' but have to be expressed by defining it through postulates regarding the LANGUAGE that refers to reality.

To observe nothing is to be able to observe an axiom, something which is accepted as is without proof, as having nothing behind it. All axioms have nothing behind them.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 1:18 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:03 am To prove nothing is to prove nothing at all thus no proof exists. The absence of proof for nothing is necessitated by the nature of nothing at including proof as fundamentally nothing. Considering there is no proof for "nothing" nothing cannot be disproven either given an absence of proof for nothing is in itself nothing.


Nothing can neither be proven nor disproven but rather taken axiomatically as this axiomatic nature reflects the same absence of form in which a form impresses itself upon. Axioms are taken on nothing, given no thought is evident behind the axiom for it is strictly taken "as is" without anything behind it. The axiom is rooted in nothing thus nothing is axiomatic.

This axiomatic nature can neither be proven or disproven.

An axiom is not an assumption. An axiom is an axiom because to deny it is a self-contradiction. One must assume the axiom is true in order to formulate a denial of the axiom.

For example. The fact of existence is axiomatic. "There is existence." One cannot deny existence without assuming the existence the denier. If there were no existence there would be no one to deny it.

An axiom is accepted as is, as accepted as is it is imprinted on the psyche thus is assumed by the psyche. To deny an axiom, thus resulting in a contradiction, is to assume a contradiction.

Contradiction is accepted purely for what it is and nothing is behind it when accepted purely for what it is. In simpler terms to deny an axiom results in contradiction, yet contradiction being denied results in contradiction therefore resulting in a contradiction being purely assumed. To not assume a contradiction as a contradiction necessitates something beyond the contradiction which is not a contradiction.

On one hand you claim an axiom is not an assumption then state one must assume the axiom is true to deny it. So which is it?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 11:09 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:03 am To prove nothing is to prove nothing at all thus no proof exists. The absence of proof for nothing is necessitated by the nature of nothing at including proof as fundamentally nothing. Considering there is no proof for "nothing" nothing cannot be disproven either given an absence of proof for nothing is in itself nothing.


Nothing can neither be proven nor disproven but rather taken axiomatically as this axiomatic nature reflects the same absence of form in which a form impresses itself upon. Axioms are taken on nothing, given no thought is evident behind the axiom for it is strictly taken "as is" without anything behind it. The axiom is rooted in nothing thus nothing is axiomatic.

This axiomatic nature can neither be proven or disproven.

I disagree. But it requires reflection on meaning. We exist as 'something' and so are unable to literally witness 'nothing' in a directly empirical way. But logically it can be defined FROM what we do know. For us, 'nothing' can be defined by something that is 'empty' of a particular something or an inversed operation on something posited, like that X + (-X) = 0. It becomes 'defining' or tautological and no mathematical reasoning can exist without it. In essence, it is 'relative' in this respect.

As for absolutely nothing, our ONLY difficulty with this by most humans is that 'existence' begs time. We also don't have proof of 'time' if you were to technically speak of its existence. However, there is a non-time based meaning to the concept that can be defined by LIMITS (Calculus). Since logic itself is 'empirical' when considering questioning generalities, forms, or absolutes, "nothing", relative or absolute, is still 'empirical' INDIRECTLY.

So, to that member who asserts his or herself, "nothing", ...

nothing wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:57 pm Any/all considerations of "nothing" in isolation is errant, as "nothing" is but one side of a two-sided coin.

Just as the presence of yang is required for the presence of yin (by way of contrast),
"something" is required for any/all considerations of "nothing" (by way of the same).

What actually matters however is not the aspects themselves, but the nature of the relation between the two.
Both "nothing" and "something" (as aspects of a polar binary) share in a common ground (that is): perpetual conjugation.

To consider one aspect in isolation (as if: removed) from the other is akin to ignoring one pole of a dipole (-/+).
In any event: there is never need/inclining to "prove nothing" as nothing naturally relies on something (to be).

Instead of "to prove nothing..." it should be "to prove something..." & truth-by-way-of-negation yields "to prove something (is) not...".

...
I disagree that we cannot infer an absolute nothing. But it has to be at the absolute level of "Totality" (not merely our empirical universe). I argue that if we are to be appropriately fair to reasoning, we cannot assume that an Absolute Infinite and continuous whole would 'exist' [or 'be' as a state] without it including absolutely nothing in meaning. Any other in-between interpretion of finite concepts as ALL that is real is biased to our impossiblity of existing infinitely either. In fact, such finite interpretations are more dubious in contexts of reasoning and why we get limitations to closure when speaking about perfect completeness. [Incompleteness Theorem, for instance proves our limitations due to our own limits empirically.]

I'm not religious. As such I infer 'absolutely nothing' from postulating 'absolutely everything' with the caveat that this is about Totality, not merely any particular Universe, such as ours. Even for those who are religious who place their "God" there as a Total source of all, it acts merely as an empty variable that begs is own source infinitely. This 'infinity' suffices to justify postulating it on the level of Totality. Then we still have "Absolutely Nothing" as the only most UNIVERSAL concept shared of absoutely ANYTHING.

If you still have a problem with this, resort back to Calculus limits that suffice to define such a concept as that 'limit' to the most primal source of all things. The most common denominator of anything IS 'nothing' and why set theories' use of the "empty set" uses it, whether postulated or not. Most such systems have 'undefined' terms, of which Class (or Set by traditional versions) are just such. That is, they are not 'postulated' but have to be expressed by defining it through postulates regarding the LANGUAGE that refers to reality.

We can infer nothing as an absence of inference. To infer everything necessitates everything as axiomatic and as axiomatic it has nothing behind it. Only being exists, nothing is an absence of inference.