Philosophy Now Forum

I understand that, negation of negation leads to a positive.

But I dont understand what happens after, wouldn't you just have positive=positive infinitely? How do you get the next thing? How would you get something and nothing seperate, yin and yang?

it doesn't

unless it's a magician's rabbit (but even then it's a trick)

-Imp

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 9:20 pm How does nothing turn into something

That's only a problem for those that posit it, typically in naivete.

Define 'nothing'.

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 9:20 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXkJf_q ... rt_radio=1

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 9:20 pm

How would you get something and nothing seperate, yin and yang?

By using the conceptual separation of God and human, similar but not the same, as a touchstone for understanding.

Do the thoughts that resonate with innate, mathematical, dualistic, pattern-recognizing awareness … do these thoughts arrive from nothing, or are the thoughts that we think actually received from that big transmitter in the sky? Are thoughts actually Sky-God’s transmissions, received by the most delicate receiver in the universe, an organic receiver, capable of replication via a complex life cycle, where the thoughts received are processed and transformed into actions, actions that are later turned into follow-around tales, tales to communicate and recognize the order of the universe with understandable, sequential causes that give meaning, justification, and nice-sounding drama for how it all came to be, beginning one dark and stormy night.

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Aug 29, 2025 1:12 am Define 'nothing'.

Not some thing; no thing.

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 9:20 pm I understand that, negation of negation leads to a positive.

Will you provide an example for us to look at, here?

If no, then why not?

Absolute nothing does not turn into something. But, how the 'appearance of nothing' turns into some visible thing is just the natural way all matter presents itself.

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 9:20 pm But I dont understand what happens after, wouldn't you just have positive=positive infinitely?

That would depend upon what example you are thinking of, here.

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 9:20 pm How do you get the next thing?

All next objects just come from the rearrange of matter, and, all next thoughts just come from previous experiences and previous thoughts.

But, if you define what you mean by 'next thing', specifically, then I can be more specific, here, for you.

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 9:20 pm How would you get something and nothing seperate, yin and yang?

you do not get some thing and no thing separate, other than through thought, itself, of course. That there exists, always, an appearance of some thing, (the visible), and no thing, (the invisible), is not created nor done by you necessarily but is done and achieved by the Universe, Itself.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Aug 29, 2025 9:51 pm

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 9:20 pm

How would you get something and nothing seperate, yin and yang?

By using the conceptual separation of God and human, similar but not the same, as a touchstone for understanding.

Do the thoughts that resonate with innate, mathematical, dualistic, pattern-recognizing awareness … do these thoughts arrive from nothing, or are the thoughts that we think actually received from that big transmitter in the sky?

Why do you say 'it' is in the so-called 'sky'?

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Aug 29, 2025 9:51 pm Are thoughts actually Sky-God’s transmissions, received by the most delicate receiver in the universe, an organic receiver, capable of replication via a complex life cycle, where the thoughts received are processed and transformed into actions, actions that are later turned into follow-around tales, tales to communicate and recognize the order of the universe with understandable, sequential causes that give meaning, justification, and nice-sounding drama for how it all came to be, beginning one dark and stormy night.

But, 'It' did not begin?

Why do you think or believe that 'It' began?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 29, 2025 11:56 pm

It’s a pre-emptive embrace of the projected shallowness oft’ displayed by sneering atheists who use the term.

With so many people around, every moment is a beginning for someone.

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 3:14 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 29, 2025 11:56 pm

It’s a pre-emptive embrace of the projected shallowness oft’ displayed by sneering atheists who use the term.

With so many people around, every moment is a beginning for someone.

What are you even on about, here?

Why do 'you' say that 'It' is in the sky?

And, the Universe did not begin, for the very simple fact that it is both theoretically and empirically an absolute impossibility. The fact that the proof exists for an eternal Universe means, irrefutably, that the Universe could not and did not begin. End of story.

Now, for those who would like to have a discussion, then let 'this' begin.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 11:04 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 3:14 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 29, 2025 11:56 pm

It’s a pre-emptive embrace of the projected shallowness oft’ displayed by sneering atheists who use the term.

With so many people around, every moment is a beginning for someone.

What are you even on about, here?

Why do 'you' say that 'It' is in the sky?

And, the Universe did not begin, for the very simple fact that it is both theoretically and empirically an absolute impossibility. The fact that the proof exists for an eternal Universe means, irrefutably, that the Universe could not and did not begin. End of story.

Now, for those who would like to have a discussion, then let 'this' begin.

Age, your question was answered.
The question, and the answer, began the discussion.
The discussion has already begun.

You just dropped the ball, again.
And who's fault is that, that you can't have a discussion?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 11:04 am And, the Universe did not begin, for the very simple fact that it is both theoretically and empirically an absolute impossibility. The fact that the proof exists for an eternal Universe means, irrefutably, that the Universe could not and did not begin. End of story.

Prove it.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 11:04 am

Not even Socrates so fully embraced the Art and Philosophy of Incomprehension.

In dialogue, eventually that road leads to discussing the definition of, “is.”

.

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 9:20 pm I understand that, negation of negation leads to a positive.

But I dont understand what happens after, wouldn't you just have positive=positive infinitely? How do you get the next thing? How would you get something and nothing seperate, yin and yang?

Only if you’re in a Hellman’s Mayonnaise ad, can you get something (a sandwich, a burger, a whole arse meal) from nothing but a spoonful of mayonnaise.
.

On a serious note.. I’ve thought of something pertinent, but I ain’t being paid for this sh*t, so..