Nothing Exists, Is Contradictory.

[Owen]

Nothing exists, is contradictory.
Nothing exists, means, It is not the case that something exists.

(Nothing exists) <-> ~(Something exists)
Something exists <-> ~(Nothing exists)

Something exists, means, there is an x such that: x exists.
Something exists, means, Ex(x exists). (ExE!x)

x exists, is defined, there is some y such that: x is equal to y.
E!x =df Ey(x=y).

Something exists, means, Ex[Ey(x=y)].

Nothing exists, means, ~Ex[Ey(x=y)].

Because, (nothing exists) <-> ~(something exists).


But, ExEy(x=y) is a theorem.

1. Ax[x=x] and 2. AxAy[x=y -> (Fx <-> Fy)] are the axioms of identity theory, within first order predicate logic.


ExEy(x=y)

Proof:

1. Ax(x=x) -> a=a
2. a=a -> Ey(a=y).
3. Ey(a=y) -> Ex[Ey(x=y)].
4. Ax(x=x) -> ExEy(x=y).
5. ExEy(x=y).
By axiom 1, Ax(x=x).

If we use the second order Leibnitz-Russell definition of identity,
x=y =df AF(Fx <-> Fy), then ..

x=x means AF(Fx <-> Fx), which is clearly tautologous for all x.


Therefore ~ExEy(x=y) is a contradiction.

i.e. Nothing exists is a contradiction.

What do you think about 'Nothing exists' ?

Owen

[sonrisa]

thanx for breaking that down, Owen. :)

not that there was any need- the word exists implies that there is something,

so as you say, nothing exists is a contradiction. The question, as I see it, is why things exist at all.

[rich]

Yes Owen, even if the something is 0 = zero, then zero =0 must be something, even though it is nothing! Oh, that Old Man River ! :blink:

[a random hack]

who said nothing exists?

and i wanna know, WHY do you want to know why things exist?

<floats down the ole man rivver> :lol:

[Owen]

rich:
Yes Owen, even if the something is 0 = zero, then zero =0 must be something, even though it is nothing! Oh, that Old Man River !


It is incorrect to say that: zero (0) is nothing.
It is also incorrect to say that: the null set ({}) is nothing.

Both zero and the null set have properties, that can be confirmed.

For example, Russell defines zero as the class of empty sets...
Therefore, {} is a member of 0, is true.

The empty set is granted existence by axiom, therefore we can say {} = {}, is true.

We cannot say that: nothing = nothing, or, nothing is a member of 0, or, nothing is a member of {}, etc.

Nothing does not have any properties at all!

We cannot say what it (nothing) is, but we can say what it is not.

"One thing for sure is, nothing is for sure." this statement has no sense for me, why do you think it is sensible?

[Owen]

a random hack:
who said nothing exists?

ni·hil·ism
n.
Philosophy.
An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

a random hack:
and i wanna know, WHY do you want to know why things exist?

Reasoning demands it.
Existence separates fiction from fact, does it not?

[Owen]

sonrisa:
thanx for breaking that down, Owen.

OK

sonrisa:
not that there was any need- the word exists implies that there is something,
so as you say, nothing exists is a contradiction. The question, as I see it, is why things exist at all.

The word 'why' implies that there is some sort of purpose to existence.

I agree that the 'bigger view' questions the need, use, or purpose of existence.


"What we cannot know about we must pass in silence"

[a random hack]

owen :) ,
are you a slave to reasoning?

and, if a thing exists, you hardly need proof, do you?

[Owen]

a random hack:
owen ,
are you a slave to reasoning?

We all are ..if we want to deal with truth!

a random hack:
and, if a thing exists, you hardly need proof, do you?

Of course not. If we have knowledge that a thing exists, then,
we also have proof of that existence.

Knowledge is that which IS shown to be the case!

[sahyo]

We all are ..if we want to deal with truth!

imagined reasoning assumed concluded imgined falsely stating?

[sahyo]

Knowledge is that which IS shown to be the case!

knowledge is only remembering information is it not?

[Owen]

asheera:
imagined reasoning assumed concluded imgined falsely stating?

Could you translate your remark into English?
It is clearly gibberish in its presented form.

asheera:
knowledge is only remembering information is it not?

Certainly not!
That you can remember what you know, is not informative as to
what knowledge is...in any way.

[sahyo]

That you can remember what you know, is not informative as to
what knowledge is...in any way.

what definition does owen believe know-ledge

what seems the source of defining?

can define happening?

:)

[sahyo]

It is clearly gibberish in its presented form.

is it clearly gibberish or just not worded appeasing the rules of academic expectation?

:)

[sahyo]

is not language gibberish? :D

[sahyo]

a random hack:
owen ,
are you a slave to reasoning?

We all are ..if we want to deal with truth!

does owen believe reasoning as though real?

can source which believes "deal with truth" as though a separate truth to deal with?

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by asheera@Aug 18 2004, 12:57 PM
is not language gibberish? :D
oh slay-ah.........


:D

[sahyo]

:lol:

[Owen]

Owen:
It is clearly gibberish in its presented form.

asheera:
is it clearly gibberish or just not worded appeasing the rules of academic expectation?

Oh! I see that you do not want to deal with the structure of language, because that would be "appeasing the rules of academic expectation", ..is that your view?

How does someone else understand the structure of your structureless language???
Is it unreasonable that I should want to understand what you say?

asheera:
is not language gibberish?

Of course not.
Your example qualifies , but, English does not!

Clearly some rules of grammar are required for any understanding, don't you think so?

If you do not want others to understand what you are saying, then, you are on the right track.

Communications move more easily when we have a common language structure, ..why don't you think this way?

[sahyo]

Oh! I see that you do not want to deal with the structure of language, because that would be "appeasing the rules of academic expectation", ..is that your view?

no

[sahyo]

Is it unreasonable that I should want to understand what you say?

no not unreasonable, but can seeming understanding understand when imagines has understood? :)

[Owen]

Is it unreasonable that I should want to understand what you say?

no not unreasonable , but can seeming understanding understand when imagines has understood?
--------------------------------------

It is very clear to me that you are playing a silly game, to which only you know the rules.

Lots of luck.

If and when you decide to talk in English, perhaps we can communicate our opinions.

I will not reply to your posts, because I don't understand what you are saying.

Hopefully that will change soon.

Regards,

Owen

[sahyo]

asheera:
is not language gibberish?

Of course not.
Your example qualifies , but, English does not!

and if didn't imagine language as though 'defining'?

Clearly some rules of grammar are required for any understanding, don't you think so?

didn't post grammar?, or didn't post how was imagined grammer should/shouldn't?

Communications move more easily when we have a common language structure, ..why don't you think this way?

perhaps owen experiment reading without expecting which have learned?

[rich]

Originally posted by Owen@Aug 18 2004, 04:52 PM
rich:
Yes Owen, even if the something is 0 = zero, then zero =0 must be something, even though it is nothing! Oh, that Old Man River !


It is incorrect to say that: zero (0) is nothing.
It is also incorrect to say that: the null set ({}) is nothing.

Both zero and the null set have properties, that can be confirmed.

For example, Russell defines zero as the class of empty sets...
Therefore, {} is a member of 0, is true.

The empty set is granted existence by axiom, therefore we can say {} = {}, is true.

We cannot say that: nothing = nothing, or, nothing is a member of 0, or, nothing is a member of {}, etc.

Nothing does not have any properties at all!

We cannot say what it (nothing) is, but we can say what it is not.

"One thing for sure is, nothing is for sure." this statement has no sense for me, why do you think it is sensible?
Hi Owen,

I am sorry that you seem to have so much difficulty in understanding nothing.
If you really understood something, then you would understand that there is no thing
as a sure thing. IOW, nothing is for sure, for life is an uncertainty. But, if you would rather discuss symbols/ bracketry/ tools /{[()]}, that may be a different discussion.

AFAIAC, this entire thread is gibberish. It is nonsensical, and I hope Owen does not take this concern, seriously. <_< :blink:

[sahyo]

this entire thread is gibberish


:applause:

[sonrisa]

:lol: good one Richie!!

Seriously, tho, I believe Owen is referring to Bertrand Russell & math. I seem to remember playing around with number sets back in jhs math. I remember the null set.

you like math, don't you Owen? :)

I agree that to question why things exist implies a purpose to existence.... but, otoh, could that implication of a purpose merely be a need of over-bloated egos?

Random- I wanna know WHY do you wanna know.....

--cuz I'm nosy. Why do you wanna know? :P

[a random hack]

core zam no-zee (and core zi wanted to see your cute pink tongue :P ) :lol:

[Owen]

Hi Owen,

If you really understood something, then you would understand that there is no thing as a sure thing. IOW, nothing is for sure, for life is an uncertainty.


Hi rich,

"One thing for sure is, nothing is for sure."

One thing for sure, is that, there is no thing for sure ..is a contradiction!

If there is no thing for sure, then there cannot be one thing for sure either.

There is one thing for sure, and, there is no thing for sure ..is contadictory!

I think your term 'a sure thing' refers to absolute truth.

I agree that, there is no truth that is absolutly true ..because all truth is decided by some method of decision, and there cannot be a unique method of deciding all truths.

"IOW, nothing is for sure,"

Nothing is for sure, means, It is not the case that something is for sure, ..i.e. It is false that there is an absolute truth.

rich:
AFAIAC, this entire thread is gibberish. It is nonsensical,


It is not nonsensical (meaningless) to talk about nothing.

"Nothing does not exist" is not only meaningful it is true.

We can talk (with meaning) about many things that do not exist.

For example:

The present king of France
The whole number between 3 and 4
That which is not equal to itself
Nothing
Neverything
Spiritual things
Fictional things
etc.

[vicente]

To begin, neither the words 'nothing' nor 'exist' seem to be defined,...only assumed. Nothing, n., no thing, non-existence, or something without quantity or magnitude.

I could say 'nothing matters'. For many this is interpreted as "forget about it". Another way to look at it however, is that Nothing (that is, the Unconditional, Stillness, Thoughtlessness, Peace, Changelessness, Truth, Peace, Life, Light and Love) really Matters.

In Vajrayana Buddhism, the phrase Nothing Matters points to Source,...not through a union of opposites, but in their dissolution. As long as there is 'one', there will be a 'many', thus Nothing remains veiled, and is perceived as an undesireous 'empty set'.

Exist, v.i., to stand alone, to have being. Most say the world exists whether you like it or not,...but then, most say that about their dreams while they're dreaming.

In Quantum Cosmology nothing (which is non-existence) exists (stands alone).

As for a 'null or empty set' (which is not Zero, with a capital Z) this "set" is dependent on all other sets for its perception. As I said, there cannot be a "one" without a "many", nor a center without an edge,...both are equal in duality's illusion.

A huge problem with understanding Nothing (with a capital N) is mathematics. Mathematics is a product of the illusion,...it's conceptual,...that is to say, how is the conceptual ever going to grasp the unconceptual? How is thought/thinking ever going to enter Thoughtlessness? How can a condition enter the Unconditional and have the Unconditional remain Unconditional? Mathematics can count into so-called infinity, but Zero upsets math's logic.

No - thing stands alone, nor is real; however, there is a Nothing upon which duality's illusion effects its motion for those no-things to be perceived.

In the Valley of the Blind the one-eyed man is treated for his illness.

:)

[sonrisa]

thanx for sharing that, Vicente :)


Owen--We can talk (with meaning) about many things that do not exist.

For example:

The present king of France

-- oh no. Not him. Not again. Strike that one



Owen--The whole number between 3 and 4

-- ok, so how about about pi, then
http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/pi/pi.html



Owen--That which is not equal to itself

--been there, done that



Owen--Nothing

-- Seinfeld



Owen--Neverything

--cool word Owen :)



Owen--Spiritual things

--the holy rollers will beg to differ with you, Owen



Owen--Fictional things

-- the trekkies will beg to differ with you, Owen



Owen-- etc.

--ad infinitum.....

[todd]

x exists, is defined, there is some y such that: x is equal to y.
E!x =df Ey(x=y).



This is a false hypothesis.
You are saying x exist and y exists (I do not see why you need ‘y’ for this, but it was your option)
But x=y is not necessarily true.
Equality between 2 items in nature cannot be proven.
Equality ‘exists’ between values, which are abstract concepts. What does ‘equality’ for the existent things mean?
Is an apple equal to another apple; is an electron equal to another electron?
I do not think ‘equal” is a concept that can be applied to ‘existent’ things

[Owen]

x exists, is defined, there is some y such that: x is equal to y.
E!x =df Ey(x=y).

todd:
This is a false hypothesis.

?? Can you show why it is false?

todd: You are saying x exist and y exists (I do not see why you need ‘y’ for this, but it was your option)

Ey(x=y) is read: There is some existent thing that x is.

Quine:
"To say that something is, is to say that it is something."
"No entity without Identity"
"To be is to be a value of a variable"

Within First Order Predicate Logic...
E!x <-> x=x <-> Ey(x=y) <-> Ey[Az(z=y <-> z=x)]

x exists means:
x is self-identical,
there is some existent thing equal to x,
there is one and only one thing equal to x,
i.e. x is unique.

Existence can be defined without identity within Second Order Logic as, E!x =df EF(Fx).

x exists, means, there is some property that x has!

todd: But x=y is not necessarily true.

? I don't understand what you mean here.
Note: x=x is necessarily true for all x's.

todd:
Equality between 2 items in nature cannot be proven.

Because it is not true. Two different things cannot be identical.
(Fx & ~Fy) -> ~(x=y).

todd: Equality ‘exists’ between values, which are abstract concepts. What does ‘equality’ for the existent things mean?
Is an apple equal to another apple; is an electron equal to another electron?

Existence and identity can be applied to all things, concrete (physical) things and abstract (mental) things.

If 'a' and 'b' name two different things then, a=b is false, and, a=a and b=b ..is true.

todd: I do not think ‘equal” is a concept that can be applied to ‘existent’ things

I assume you mean: existent physical things here.
In which case you are clearly wrong.

Surely: (G.W. Bush)=(G.W.Bush) is true, and, (G.W. Bush)=(the current president of USA) is true.
Also: 2=2 is true, and, 2=(the sum of 1 and 1) is true.

Identity is defined: x=y =df AF(Fx <-> Fy).

x=y means [a property of x is true, if and only if, that same property is true of y ..for all properties].

[sonrisa]

Owen, first you say fictional things do not exist, but then you say that existence can be applied to mental things, & I agree with you on that last part.

So therefore, fictional things exist in literature- & in the minds of both the writer & the reader. Fictional things exist in the movies & on TV, & as concrete entities in the form of sets & props.

[todd]

Owen
x exists, means, there is some property that x has!

This is another reason you deny ‘nothing’: because you say that everything that exists has a property, that means everything without a property does not exists. And as nothing has no property that means it doesn’t exists. You were using the conclusion in the hypothesis.

Owen
[/QUOTE]todd: But x=y is not necessarily true.

? I don't understand what you mean here.
Note: x=x is necessarily true for all x's.



Math is not reality.
If we talk about physical things, than x is not a variable in your meaning. X may have some properties you characterize with some values, but in our understanding, ‘values’ are just numbers, real or complex.
This doesn’t mean that you assign a value to x; you assign a value to a property that you think x have. That property cannot be separated from its subject.
Of course, you can play with mental, mathematical representations of these, but the results are virtual.

Let’s take an apple (….again). Mathematically you have 1apple, and if you want, you can divide it by 2, and get 2*1/2apple. In reality - physical existence- that apple cannot ever be divided by 2.

When talking about properties, let’s say an appleX is red, a cheryY is red and another appleZ is red.
Now we can say that colourX=colourY=colourZ, and take any conclusions from this, but are their colors really identical? No, because the color is physical property you cannot separate from the subject, and color is also another physical phenomenon.

Now, you assign ‘existence’ to x and y
You say that the ‘existence’ of X is equal and identical with the ‘existence’ of Y.
I say that only our representations of their property called ‘existence’ may be equal, and this has nothing to do with x and y. I know some people in here that will probably argue on this…

Owen:
Existence and identity can be applied to all things, concrete (physical) things and abstract (mental) things.


What if time has a real discreet nature, and existence in your meaning is not ‘continuous”?
What if space is distorted in the absence of time.
If the univers has 24 dimensions, then an entity 'existent' in your meaning in only four, will exist in the rest of the dimensions? What if it's presence in the four dimensions (we perceive), is changing the shape of the others 20 dimensions?

Does time exists?

Owen
I assume you mean: existent physical things here.
In which case you are clearly wrong.

MayBe... :unsure: As Rich says: One thing for sure is, nothing is for sure.

Owen
Surely: (G.W. Bush)=(G.W.Bush) is true, and, (G.W. Bush)=(the current president of USA) is true.


(G.W. Bush)=(G.W. )Bush ---Are you sure?
Do you see G.W. Bush the same way his wife sees?
If you want a mathematical representation I see things a bit different :
1.G.W. Bush, exists
2. G.W. Bush is complex entity. A man, a mind, a spirit, a father, etc….and endless raw of components ( my representation of his properties) in a very complex relation between them.
Let say G.W. Bush= f(f1,f2,f3,…fi…fn), n not finite,
f is a mathematical function that associates G.W. Bush properties ( as I see them) with his image, as a whole, in my mind. I was thinking about adding some recurrence to this but it is a bit above the target and I don’t especially like the ‘subject’.
And f1 is the ‘man’ component, f2 is the spirit, etc..
f1=f1(j1,j2,j3,……..jk), k not finite. with j1,j2, physical characteristics
Now ‘president’ is the fi component of f.
And obviously fi cannot be identical with f.
This is why I say G.W. Bush is the president of US, but G.W. Bush != the president of the US. He only has this quality, not for long, I hope...

Owen
[/QUOTE]Also: 2=2 is true, and, 2=(the sum of 1 and 1) is true.[QUOTE]


Yes, I agree 2=2 is true
2=1+1 is arithmetically true.
1+1=0 is also mathematically true
x=y may be mathematically true
When x,y are existent entities x=y may be ‘reasonably’ true
Also x=x is questionable for physical entities in a time/space continuum.

[sonrisa]

todd--Does time exists?

--according to Stephen Hawking, time is imaginary : http://www.everythingforever.com/hawking.htm


todd--1. G.W. Bush exists

--unfortunately


todd--2. G.W. Bush is complex entity.
--you are the 1st person I ever heard say that. Most folx agree he's a pretty simple entity



todd--A man, a mind, a spirit, a father, etc….and endless raw of components ( my representation of his properties)

-- yo Todd, you forgot liar, cheat, warmongering bastard, & general all around scuzzbucket



todd--This is why I say G.W. Bush is the president of US, but G.W. Bush != the president of the US. He only has this quality, not for long, I hope...

--3 words: vote Nov 2nd

[a random hack]

--3 words: vote Nov 2nd

four words, vote early and often :D;)

regarding reality, as i said before somewhere, a thing can be real (having an influence on things) without it existing (as a physical entity).
:)

[todd]

Sonrisa, I absolutelty agree. Unfortunately, I doubt the other option is better...I'm glad I don't have to vote...It would depress me. It is surprising to see how this great people has such a poor choice.

[Owen]

sonrisa:
Owen, first you say fictional things do not exist, but then you say that existence can be applied to mental things, & I agree with you on that last part.
So therefore, fictional things exist in literature- & in the minds of both the writer & the reader. Fictional things exist in the movies & on TV, & as concrete entities in the form of sets & props.


Fictional/mythical things have no existence outside of the story/myth.
Santa wears black boots, is false.
Santa wears black boots, within the context of the Santa-story is true. 'It is written' is not a justification for truth outside of the myth.

It is not the case that there are two kinds of existence; existence in reality and existence in the mind.
(Quine calls this; wanton obscurantism)
Fictional things have no properties that are confirmably true.
Their description within the story is all that there is for them

sonrisa: Fictional things exist in the movies & on TV, & as concrete entities in the form of sets & props.

The sets & props do indeed exist, but, the fictional things represented 'in the form of sets & props' do not refer to anything at all.

[Owen]

x exists, means, there is some property that x has!

todd:
This is another reason you deny ‘nothing’: because you say that everything that exists has a property, that means everything without a property does not exists. And as nothing has no property that means it doesn’t exists. You were using the conclusion in the hypothesis.

Of course. If (p implies q) is true, then q is included in p!

todd:
Math is not reality.
If we talk about physical things, than x is not a variable in your meaning.

Wrong!
Much of symbolic logic has nothing to do with numbers.

For example:
All men are mortal & Socrates is a man, therefore, Socrates is mortal.
This argument uses Socrates as a value of the variable x:
(Ax(x is a man -> x is mortal) & Socrates is a man) -> Socrates is a mortal.

todd: X may have some properties you characterize with some values, but in our understanding, ‘values’ are just numbers, real or complex.

Not so. The objects from any domain can be represented by variables (pronouns).

todd: Let’s take an apple (….again). Mathematically you have 1apple, and if you want, you can divide it by 2, and get 2*1/2apple. In reality - physical existence- that apple cannot ever be divided by 2.

Certainly we can separate the 1-apple into two parts.
Your concern here seems to be about precision and approximation.


Owen
[/QUOTE]I assume you mean: existent physical things here.
In which case you are clearly wrong.

todd: MayBe... As Rich says: One thing for sure is, nothing is for sure.

"One thing for sure is, nothing is for sure." is a contradiction!

Owen
Surely: (G.W. Bush)=(G.W.Bush) is true, and, (G.W. Bush)=(the current president of USA) is true.


todd: (G.W. Bush)=(G.W. )Bush ---Are you sure?

Yes. By the definition of identity; x=x <-> AF(Fx <-> Fx).
That is, (GWB)=(GWB) <-> AF(F(GWB) <-> F(GWB)).
(GWB)=(GWB) means: (GWB) has the property F, is equivalent to,
(GWB) has the property F; for all properties F.
i.e. (GWB)=(GWB) is tautologous.

Owen
[/QUOTE]Also: 2=2 is true, and, 2=(the sum of 1 and 1) is true.[QUOTE]

todd:
Yes, I agree 2=2 is true
2=1+1 is arithmetically true.

todd: 1+1=0 is also mathematically true

?? Please demonstrate. 2=0 is a contradiction.

todd: x=y may be mathematically true

x=y is necessarily true if true at all.
x=y -> [](x=y) is a theorem. If x=y then necessarily(x=y).

todd: When x,y are existent entities x=y may be ‘reasonably’ true
Also x=x is questionable for physical entities in a time/space continuum.

Not so.
It is an axiom of classical symbolic logic that: Ax(x=x)
i.e. x=x is tautologous for all entities, including physical entities.

[a random hack]

Fictional/mythical things have no existence outside of the story/myth.
Santa wears black boots, is false.
Santa wears black boots, within the context of the Santa-story is true. 'It is written' is not a justification for truth outside of the myth.

It is not the case that there are two kinds of existence; existence in reality and existence in the mind.
(Quine calls this; wanton obscurantism)
Fictional things have no properties that are confirmably true.
Their description within the story is all that there is for them

so todd,
how do you tell a thing has properties which are confirmably true, and how do you decide the context of a thing?
how do you know you are true?
outside of your context, that is?

[sonrisa]

Owen--Fictional/mythical things have no existence outside of the story/myth.
Santa wears black boots, is false.
Santa wears black boots, within the context of the Santa-story is true. 'It is written' is not a justification for truth outside of the myth.

--what about Salvation Army santas? I didn't get into this before becuz I wasn't certain how to classify actor/character. The actor is real & exists, of course. The fictional character exists in the context of the story . But does the fictional character exist in the embodiment of the actor as well? I mean, can you really see anybody besides Leonard Nimoy as Spock? Or Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector? Apparantly the latter's producers couldn't becuz they remade Red Dragon (another actor played Hannibal Lector in the original) with Hopkins.



Owen--It is not the case that there are two kinds of existence; existence in reality and existence in the mind.

--ok. now let's consider what Random said:

Random--regarding reality, as i said before somewhere, a thing can be real (having an influence on things) without it existing (as a physical entity).

-- to continue with the dubya example: Iraqi WMD's do not exist except possibly in dubya's mind (the other possibility is that they are a total fabrication, but for the sake of this discussion, we shall say they exist only in dubya's warped mind) So these WMD's do not exist as physical entities, yet the consequences the Iraqi people are suffering as a result of these non-physical entities are very real. So are these WMD's fictional, existing only in dubya's warped mind, 0r, considering their very real consequences, are they real non-physical entities?


Owen--Fictional things have no properties that are confirmably true.
Their description within the story is all that there is for them
The sets & props do indeed exist, but, the fictional things represented 'in the form of sets & props' do not refer to anything at all.

--so the props- Dorothy's ruby red slippers- are real. but do not refer to anything since Dorothy's ruby red slippers are fictional? But what if I told you Dorothy's ruby red slippers refer to something outside the context of the movie? Unfortunately, I can't remember what that something is right now, but I do remember who Dorothy herself refers to- ordinary, everyday Josephine Blow America. Her 3 friends refer to occupational demographix: the scarecrow represents farmers, the tin man industrial/factory/mine workers, & the cowardly lion all other occupations-professional, artistic, govt, etc.... the pillars of the communities- with Dorothy summing up the nation's population as a whole. She's from Kansas, the geographic center of the country, remember?
The movie refers to the gold standard (the Yellow Brick Road) & presidential election of 1896 between Pres McKinley & Wm Jennings Bryan. Pres McKinley favored the gold standard so he is the Wizard of Oz. Billie Burke, the good witch, represents all the people in the country who favored the gold standard. The Wicked Witch of the East represents the Eastern Bankers who favored the silver standard, & the house dropping on her refers to some legislation the House passed back then favoring the gold standard. The Wicked Witch of the West refers to the silver mine owners out West. She also personifies Wm Jennings Bryan (hence the monkeys) who was in favor of the silver standard. So, we have a piece of fiction that refers to real people, things & events.



Random-- four words, vote early and often :D;)

--:D :thumbsup:



ps to Todd, I'm not too thrilled with Kerry either, he's a Kennedy wannabe,
but he doesn't appear to be bent on turning this country into a fascist state. At this point, I'll settle for that. He does have a plan for health care, & for alternative energy. They aren't all that great, but they're a start, & if implemented, can be improved upon. He also has said he will undo the overtime pay take away that goes into effect this week. That's a start too.

[todd]

Owen,
It looks like we have incompatible scales of values.
Your argumentation starts and stops in the same area of predefined, you really believe in postulates and theorems, I don’t. Postulates are hypothesis that can be changed – see Euclid and his geometry - and theorems are as valid as the postulates they derive from are.
You think you can divide an apple in two equal parts, I don’t.
You think an apple is equal to another apple, I don’t.
You think that if you and I are both men, we are equal, I don’t. I think that I cannot be equal to myself (sort of Heisenberg principle). Your tautology doesn’t work for me.

I think identity does not exist in nature. I also think identity does not exist in spirit.
I think a physical existent thing cannot be absolutely identical to another.
I also think our representations of physical things are not identical. If both of us are looking at the same apple, we will not have absolutely identical representations of it in our minds. I may say it’s ugly and probably has worms, and you may see a nice, appetizing one.
I don’t believe in one humanly truth. I think my truth is not absolute, and no better than yours. I just find it more plausible.


todd:
Yes, I agree 2=2 is true
2=1+1 is arithmetically true.
todd: 1+1=0 is also mathematically true
?? Please demonstrate. 2=0 is a contradiction.


1+1=0 … in base 2

[/QUOTE]Certainly we can separate the 1-apple into two parts.

Sorry...I said ‘half’, ½, 0.5…. not 2 undefined parts.
And are you positive that by slicing the apple in 2 parts you will get 2 and only 2 ‘parts’? No leak? No 'residues'?

random hack
how do you tell a thing has properties which are confirmable true, and how do you decide the context of a thing?
how do you know you are true?
outside of your context, that is?[QUOTE]


I do not believe we are able to perceive absolute truth, and we use a ‘reasonable’ truth instead, widely accepted common sense truth.
In know that I cannot be true, as well as I know no one is true. That doesn’t mean that one cannot be closer to the ideal absolute truth than another. Now I may think I’m pretty close, but tomorrow I will read someone else’s ideas and maybe I will radically change my image of absolute truth, and again, I will think I’m getting closer… For me this is the way – keeping an open mind and trying to understand everyone’s opinion. Once you understood (or think you have) what he wants to say, you already have changed yourself. Even if you do not agree with him, you have a more profound vision of reality.

[a random hack]

Even if you do not agree with him, you have a more profound vision of reality.

or delusion :lol:

[Owen]

todd:
Your argumentation starts and stops in the same area of predefined, you really believe in postulates and theorems, I don’t.

How then, do you know anything at all?
All reasoning begins with postulates/axioms and rules of inference.
How do you decide that 2+3=5 ..is true, without postulates?

All of truth is that which can be decided, and, we must start somewhere. Obviously postulates/axioms do work.
What works for you?

todd:
Postulates are hypothesis that can be changed – see Euclid and his geometry - and theorems are as valid as the postulates they derive from are.

Yes, and logic is indeed revisable. If anyone can find a better way we should listen.

What is YOUR better way????

todd: You think you can divide an apple in two equal parts, I don’t.

What I said was "Certainly we can separate the 1-apple into two parts. Your concern here seems to be about precision and approximation."

The word "equal" is not part of what I said.

todd: You think an apple is equal to another apple, I don’t.

Again you are wrong.

todd: Equality between 2 items in nature cannot be proven.

What I said was: Because it is not true. Two different things cannot be identical. (Fx & ~Fy) -> ~(x=y).

Equality between 2 (different) items cannot be proven anywhere!

todd: You think that if you and I are both men, we are equal, I don’t.

If you want to talk about what I think or say, you had better quote me, and not resort to your incorrect opinions about what I think or say, don't you think so?

todd: I think that I cannot be equal to myself (sort of Heisenberg principle). Your tautology doesn’t work for me.

There is no uncertainty about (todd)=(todd).
A predicate of (todd) is equivalent to that same predicate of (todd) is tautologous for all predicates. i.e. p <-> p, is true for all p.

It works for everyone who understands it.

Why don't you understand 'tautology'?

todd: I think identity does not exist in nature. I also think identity does not exist in spirit.

Wrong twice this time, if 'in spirit' has sense.

todd: I think a physical existent thing cannot be absolutely identical to another.

Obviously not! It is illogic to think that way.

todd:
I also think our representations of physical things are not identical. If both of us are looking at the same apple, we will not have absolutely identical representations of it in our minds. I may say it’s ugly and probably has worms, and you may see a nice, appetizing one.
I don’t believe in one humanly truth. I think my truth is not absolute, and no better than yours. I just find it more plausible.

IMHO, there is no such thing as 'my' truth or 'your' truth.
Surely, opinion is not truth.

Truth is that which 'can' be decided. Neither you nor I have anything to do with the essence of truth.


todd:
Yes, I agree 2=2 is true
2=1+1 is arithmetically true.
todd: 1+1=0 is also mathematically true
?? Please demonstrate. 2=0 is a contradiction.


todd: 1+1=0 … in base 2

Wrong again!

1+1=10 ...in base 2 arithmetic.

[todd]

Mea culpa, I was thinking about XOR gates and jumped from AND to + and base 2...

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks...ls-theorem.html (http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks/godels-theorem.html)

[vicente]

IMHO, there is no such thing as 'my' truth or 'your' truth.
Surely, opinion is not truth.

Truth is that which 'can' be decided. Neither you nor I have anything to do with the essence of truth.


The above appears to be an oxymoron. I agree that opinion is not truth, but nor is truth that which the majority "decided",...that is merely a majority opinion.

Although the majority disagrees, a truth is that time does not exist. The idea of a present or instant in time is false,...there is no present nor instant in time.

The flaw in the math of this post is that it presumes time is real or exists. In essence, the math is merely expressing the perceived dynamics of a dream. For the majority, when they are dreaming, they think the dream is real.

All reasoning begins with postulates/axioms and rules of inference.

Here's a different postulate, that is, something self-evident to me:
Ancient Egyptians believed the heart was the center of intelligence and emotion. They also thought so little of the brain that during mummification, they removed the brain entirely from bodies.
Same with the Greeks, who when speaking of the mind said Thymos, and pointed to the heart.

Why would these two great cultures ( Maya and Himalaya-Arian Cultures could be included here) say the center of their mind was the heart? Clearly, reasoning with postulates/axioms and rules of inference are thought processes in the head.

The answer lies in this,...try thinking in the Now. It cannot be done. Thought/thinking is always, without exception, in the past. In other words, "reasoning with postulates/axioms and rules of inference" is simply a diversion which believes the past is real.

Science-math, from scientia, the head, is merely another belief system, no different than other belief systems. If we wish to unveil the Now, we need to access the sapiential, through the heart, by dissolving "reasoning with postulates/axioms and rules of inference" and engaging Stillness, which in math is Zero. And as we are all aware, Zero confuses maths logic.

:)

[sonrisa]

:D

[Corri]

Nothing exists, is contradictory. Nothing exists, means, It is not the case that something exists.

Perhaps this is a language problem more than a Zen problem. Almost everybody that reads a little about Zen starts thinking that NOTHING exists because everything is inherently empty, so what we perceive as reality must be delusion.

The sutras often use the word "great void" to explain the significance of Sunyata. In general, we understand the "great void" as something that contains absolutely nothing. However, from a Buddhist perspective, the nature of the "great void" implies something which does not obstruct other things, in which all matters perform their own functions. Materials are form, which by their nature, imply obstruction. The special characteristic of the "great void" is non-obstruction. The "great void" therefore, does not serve as an obstacle to them. Since the "great void" exhibits no obstructive tendencies, it serves as the foundation for matter to function. In other words, if there was no "great void" nor characteristic of non-obstruction, it would be impossible for the material world to exist and function. (Source: Awakening 101).

[sonrisa]

that is an interesting pov Corri, but Owen's a pretty literal dude. I think he's saying that nothing exists is a literal contradiction. At least that's how I read his posts.

[Corri]

Ah. The point, then, is to share a process of logic, not to expand or contract one's thinking?

Corri

[sonrisa]

both, neither, one or the other....

the point is.... whatever you get out of this forum. People post here for different reasons, & come away satisfied differently. Those that come away satisfied, that is.

[Corri]

Huh. Kinda takes the "D" right out of "discussion" then, doesn't it? :lol:

Corri

[sonrisa]

mmmmmm not necessarily :)

actually I think the dicussions are more interesting when folx are coming at them from different places.

scroll the the topix in these forums. Sure some are pretty much dead in the water, but others list hundreds of replies, most topix are at least in the double digits of replies. So I'd say there's some discussing going on here, among other things.

[evan]

sonrisa, dude.. that's TOTALY true... (teehee.)

:)

no but actually i totaly agree
(about no need for taking out the "D")
there might be differentiating interest,
'twixt a farmer, and a peppy linguist,

but the who is better on the morrow's morn,
if neither leaves with any bit of scorn?
So your "forum's goal" is acurate; articulate:
Your point in this case perfectly emaculate.
___________________________

okay vicente -
I agree that opinion is not truth, but nor is truth that which the majority "decided",...that is merely a majority opinion.
so then you go on to point out that Although the majority disagrees, a truth is that time does not exist

now, i understand that you went on to make a case for why that "truth" was true.. but all the same, you had to explain it. You had to, essentially, "make a case" for it. Why? because, as you said, most people would disagree. most people would say, "yes, time exists. it exists because i perceive that it does. and since all i have to base my knowledge on is empirical evidence (that which i can sense, or perceive) then since i perceive time: it exists"

now wait: i'm not trying to counter your argument that time doesn't exist. at least not yet. what i'm saying is that, no matter how good a case you make for it, it is still unavoidably an opinion. it is your opinion that, based on what you know/have experienced/have been taugh/whatever, that it is a "truth" that time does not exist. In this sense, though i would agree that real "truth" is not opinion, I would also put forth that truth by that definition can never actually be known (setting aside for now, for the sake of argument, states such as nirvana, etc.). And if truth by that definition can never actually be known, then that definition of truth becomes less usefull in the vernacular. So instead we call that "ultimate truth".

Therefore though I accept the idea of "opinionless truth", i.e. "ultimate truth", I would disagree with the statement that there is no such thing as 'my' truth or 'your' truth. It is clearly true for me that there is a divines essence of some form present in the universe/world/body/etc. That's my truth. But if was to try to impose my perception of the world onto another individual, it wouldn't work because my perception (as is everyone's) is like a custom fit pair oh boots: they only fit me. But that doesn't mean the no one else has boots.. and if my boots are bright neon red ( :) ), that doesn't doesn't mean that someone else's can't be brown. in other words, for jonathan doesimer it may well be true that no god exists. Thus, individual truth has to exist.

okay so just in case you were just skimming ever since i challanged the truth of time not existing, i'll make an amature stab at it. What i understood from your writing was that, essentially, time does not exist, because it cannot exist, because (at least in part) there is no such thing as the Now. I would agree: one cannot think in the Now. All thoughts are perceptions of what just happened a second, or even a nanosecond prior.. thus, we're really just a few "spaces of time" behind on everthing that happened. But.. for our conciousness to always be "a little bit behind", there has to be something for us to be behind. In other words, there can't be a past, w/o a present.. or at the very least.. there can't be a past w/o a future. This has to be true, as past, present and future are structuralist terms: defined by each others existence. past and future are two opposites, with present as the middle point between them.

It's like Hot, and Cold. one can't have hot w/o Cold, because Hot is defined by the existence of Cold. Now, on a temperature scale, one cannot pass from Cold into Hot, without first passing through the point at which it is niether hot nor cold. Thus, however unimaginably small, or thoroughly imperceptible or unatainable, the Present must exist, as one cannot pass from the Past into the Future with out at some point passing through the Present. The Present is the Now. Therefore the Now has to exist.

Like dark matter, for instance, we infer that it exists, w/o having any positive way of actually sensing its existence. Thus, though you beautifully articulate the imperceptibility of the Now, it still must exist. Thus time can still exist.

:unsure: e :think:

[Owen]

"Nothing exists, is contradictory. Nothing exists, means, It is not the case that something exists."


Hi Corri,

Corri: Perhaps this is a language problem more than a Zen problem.

I consider it to be a problem of logical reasoning.

Corrri:
Almost everybody that reads a little about Zen starts thinking that NOTHING exists because everything is inherently empty, so what we perceive as reality must be delusion.

How can it be that "what we percieve as reality must be delusion"
without existing things. Surely, perceptions and delusions are things even if they do not represent reality?
The "great void" has a description, i.e. it clearly is not nothing.

I have not read about Zen or Buddhism.

Corri:
In other words, if there was no "great void" nor characteristic of non-obstruction, it would be impossible for the material world to exist and function. (Source: Awakening 101).

Dosen't this remark entail the existence of (some) things?

Regards,

Owen

[Corri]

Hi Own,

Thanks for the reply. For a person who seems interested in logical thinking and discourse, you may find Zen and Buddhism very interesting.

See if this answers your questions. Again, it is coming from Awakening 101.

Over and over in Zen and Buddhism something like 'All is illusion' or 'The world is delusion' is presented. The problem with such understandings if presented as being true or otherwise representitive of reality, absolute or otherwise in the final sense, is that any and all persons presenting the statement and any and all persons recieving the statement would be themselves immersed products in that self-same illusion or delusion. Offering or making decisions on anything at all from that illusional or delusional position would be questionable, inturn totally undermining any credibility on such a statement, understanding, or belief.

Saying 'All is delusion' or 'The world is delusion' is by implication saying illusion/delusion IS, that is, that it exists, that it has it's own independent existence, existing independently without need. Dependent Origination on the other hand, implies there can be absolutely nothing whatsoever that is real or eternal behind this actual world and beyond the interdependence of everything. Because of that interdependence all that exists is inherently empty. It can be argued on the conventional level there is causation that could or would back up illusion/delusion, but because causation has no inherent existence either, neither then could or would illusion/delusion. To perceive that causation DOES have inherent existence is what is called ignorance. Perceiving that LACK of causation in inherent existence is wisdom.

Corri

[sahyo]

See if this answers your questions


:lol:

[Owen]

Corri:
Thanks for the reply. For a person who seems interested in logical thinking and discourse, you may find Zen and Buddhism very interesting.
See if this answers your questions. Again, it is coming from Awakening 101.


I do not see the logic of this at all!

Corri:
Saying 'All is delusion' or 'The world is delusion' is by implication saying illusion/delusion IS, that is, that it exists, that it has it's own independent existence, existing independently without need.

This is a long way from saying 'nothing exists'.

Delusion exists implies mind exists.
(false beliefs are surely beliefs, aren't they)
Mind exists implies brain exists.
Brain exists implies physical things exist.

Therefore, delusion implies physical things exist.


Corri:
Over and over in Zen and Buddhism something like 'All is illusion' or 'The world is delusion' is presented. The problem with such understandings if presented as being true or otherwise representitive of reality, absolute or otherwise in the final sense, is that any and all persons presenting the statement and any and all persons recieving the statement would be themselves immersed products in that self-same illusion or delusion.

That delusion does not represent reality, does not support the idea that 'nothing exists'.

It is clearly absurd to say that delusion is nothing.

Corri: Perceiving that LACK of causation in inherent existence is wisdom.

??? How do you get perception without causation?

Your sense of 'wisdom' will not do!

Owen

[Corri]

Owen:

"Nothing exists, is contradictory. Nothing exists, means, It is not the case that something exists."

Let's go back to the original statement. Your conclusion: Nothing exists is contradictory is based upon the premise, which you assume to be true, that the meaning of Nothing is "it is not the case that something exists."

I believe there is a language problem which is first getting in the way of your logic.

You assume that your definition of Nothing is true, and that it is Universally true. And it may well be. However, in the quotes I have been giving you, another meaning of Nothing is presented: no obstructive tendencies, which is also true.

It is therefore logical, then, so say:

Since "Nothing" exhibits no obstructive tendencies, it serves as the foundation for matter to function. In other words, if there was no "Nothing" nor characteristic of non-obstruction, it would be impossible for the material world to exist and function.


Delusion exists implies mind exists.
(false beliefs are surely beliefs, aren't they)
Mind exists implies brain exists.
Brain exists implies physical things exist.

Therefore, delusion implies physical things exist.

So it does. Your world, your logic -- what is true, what is false, as things -- is based upon delusional "I" perceiving a physcial world. And in order for your material world to exist and function, there can be "nothing" to interfere with it, obstruct it, or it simply cannot be. So this is how it can be that "what we percieve as reality must be delusion" for no thing exists without non-obstruction.

And that cannot possibly be. Can it?

Corri

[Corri]

Perhaps it is better to say that "Nothing exists" is an inaccurate premise. Perhaps it is more accuate to say, rather, that "Nothing is." Or, "Non-obstruction is."

Corri

[Corri]

Owen:

Can you run this in one of your logical proofie things?

No thing is NOT, therefore, some thing is.

But I don't believe you can say: some thing is, therefore no thing is not, because some thing is already there, and the only way it can be there is because of Nothing.

Corri

[sahyo]

the only way it can be there is because


does seem "because"? :)

[sahyo]

You assume


says owen assuming and imagines corri isn't when says "because"?

[sahyo]

It is therefore logical, then, so say:

Since "Nothing" exhibits no obstructive tendencies, it serves as the foundation for matter to function. In other words, if there was no "Nothing" nor characteristic of non-obstruction, it would be impossible for the material world to exist and function.


:lol:

[sahyo]

So it does. Your world, your logic -- what is true, what is false, as things -- is based upon delusional "I" perceiving a physcial world. And in order for your material world to exist and function, there can be "nothing" to interfere with it, obstruct it, or it simply cannot be. So this is how it can be that "what we percieve as reality must be delusion" for no thing exists without non-obstruction.


not logic you posted either

perhaps read/post on dutch-language forums?

:)

[Corri]

Asheera, perhaps you can brush up on your english. I am not certain of your meaning.

However, I, like anyone else, am subject to the variables of semantics, yet language is the only thing I have to verbally communicate. It is retrictive at best. If you see that I have altered the meaning of the quote to which I am referring, please feel free to explain where and how I did so -- this I ask of anyone.

Thanks,

Corri

[Corri]

Or, consider:

The following discourse is attributed to the Chinese Zen master Ch'ing yuan Wei-hsin of the T'ang Dynasty and provides a window into the understanding of Zen:

Thirty years ago, before I began the study of Zen, I said, 'Mountains are mountains, waters are waters.' After I got insight into the truth of Zen through the instructions of a good master, I said, 'Mountains are not mountains, waters are not waters.' But now, having attained the abode of final rest, (that is, Enlightenment) I say, 'Mountains are really mountains, waters are really waters.'

He then asks:

'Are the three understandings the same or different?'

[sahyo]

Asheera, perhaps you can brush up on your english.


:lol:


If you see that I have altered the meaning of the quote to which I am referring, please feel free to explain where and how I did so -- this I ask of anyone.


did seem the post was expressing perhaps "altered" the quote?

wouldn't "feel free" or 'not feel free' to explain if explaining happened

:)

[sahyo]

Or, consider:


:lol:

[Owen]

Owen:

Can you run this in one of your logical proofie things?

No thing is NOT, therefore, some thing is.

But I don't believe you can say: some thing is, therefore no thing is not, because some thing is already there, and the only way it can be there is because of Nothing.
-------------------------------------

Nothing is not, is equivalent to, something is.

Nothing cannot be the cause of anything!

Do you really believe that: Nothing causes something?!

Corri:
Perhaps it is better to say that "Nothing exists" is an inaccurate premise. Perhaps it is more accuate to say, rather, that "Nothing is." Or, "Non-obstruction is."

Nothing exists, means, nothing is.

I don't know what "Non-obstruction" means.

Corri:
It is therefore logical, then, so say:
Since "Nothing" exhibits no obstructive tendencies, it serves as the foundation for matter to function. In other words, if there was no "Nothing" nor characteristic of non-obstruction, it would be impossible for the material world to exist and function.

Does the existence of the material world come from nothing??

Corri: Your world, your logic -- what is true, what is false, as things -- is based upon delusional "I" perceiving a physcial world.

You see delusion, I do not.

Corri: And in order for your material world to exist and function, there can be "nothing" to interfere with it, obstruct it, or it simply cannot be.

And how do you know that this is true?

Corri: So this is how it can be that "what we percieve as reality must be delusion" for no thing exists without non-obstruction.

??? Why do you think that this is a logical consequence of your previous statements.

By what reasoning does it follow?

[Corri]

Owen:

Nothing is not, is equivalent to, something is.

"Something is" has both subjective and objective qualities. Nothing does not.

Nothing cannot be the cause of anything! Do you really believe that: Nothing causes something?!

It's more along the lines of, nothing is in order that something can be.

Nothing exists, means, nothing is.

Well, again, we are limited by language. "Exists" implies a time element. In order for 'exist' to be, at one point it had to 'not exist.' It implies a beginning and an end. Nothing Is, no beginning, middle, or end. No time element, for there is no thing to have a time element.

I don't know what "Non-obstruction" means.

Obstruct means to hinder, to block, to cut off from. Matter, in and of itself, is obstruction. Non-obstruction, then, is absent of any obstruction whatsoever. So again, since "Nothing" exhibits no obstructive tendencies, it serves as the foundation for matter to function. In other words, if there was no "Nothing," nor characteristic of non-obstruction, it would be impossible for the material world to exist and function.

Does the existence of the material world come from nothing??

Nothing is not an object, nor is it subject. It is not. It is eternal non-obstruction with no time element involved. It is pure moment.

You see delusion, I do not.

I meant no insult. I am saying, perhaps, that a concept of 'nothing' (concept making Nothing a thing) comes from conceptual understanding of 'something.' So flip it. Out of what does concept come?

Corri: And in order for your material world to exist and function, there can be "nothing" to interfere with it, obstruct it, or it simply cannot be.

And how do you know that this is true?

This is simplistic... but think of a parking space. If a parking space already has 'something' -- a car -- occupying it, can you park your car -- something -- there?

Corri: So this is how it can be that "what we percieve as reality must be delusion" for no thing exists without non-obstruction.

??? Why do you think that this is a logical consequence of your previous statements.

Well. It may not be. I may not have stated it correctly.

A perceiving is in itself pure, i.e., impersonal and real. The interpretation that follows introduces subject and object, and the result is a concept that is unreal. Perceiving is non-obstructed. Until it is interpreted. Most view the subject/object interpretation as 'real.'

Corri

[Corri]

This, from Wei Wu Wei, "Ask the Awakened: The Negative Way.

It may seem to be impossible to dispose of the notion “I am.” It is like a cork. The moment one ceases to hold it down up it pops, and anyhow—who holds it down? One may say that there is only the void, but then there is the void and the sayer that there is only the void, which is duality. And if one says that the void is I, then I am also the void. Therefore I still (objectively) am.

Quite evidently the inexistence of “I” cannot be said. But can it be thought? That which is normally meant by thought is potentially capable of verbal expression, so that it cannot be thought either.

What is “I” if it is not a presence? I am a presence, if anything. But where there is a presence there can be an absence. Therefore, if I am a presence I can also be an absence. But then, of course, an absence implies a presence. An absence is also a presence, a presence an absence, and “I” am not-I, and “Not-I” am I. Non-existence implies existence, so that I cannot not exist without existing. No, I cannot be disposed of, for in disposing of me my existence is thereby posed. I am a concept, and all concepts are dualistic, so that my inexistence cannot be thought.

But to conclude from that dualistic analysis that I necessarily am in reality would be unwarranted. Dualistically I inevitably am, but, it seems to me, non-dualistically, and equally inevitably, that I cannot possibly be. The mere fact that dualistically I must be proves that non-dualistically I cannot be.

Have we not succeeded in establishing something that cannot be established in any other way? Manifestation is a manifestation of non-manifestation, and non-manifestation is a non-manifestation of manifestation: there cannot not be manifestation dualistically, and for that reason in reality there cannot be manifestation. So that is why “from the beginning not a thing is.” (Hui Neng). Neither thing nor entity, neither world nor I. the world is my concept, built of sense-perceptions: no concepts can be real. I am a concept, built of sense-perceptions. I cannot be real.

That, surely, is the whole truth? Conceptually I must be, and via me the world must be. But beyond conceptualism nothing is, and that is the void. The void is also a non-void, or a plenum, in so far as it is a concept. There is just absolutely nothing that can be said about this. But it can be cognized, by cognition that is definitely beyond thought. Trying to say it, trying to make it a concept is futile.

So what can we do? When the notion that I am comes to me—I can still laugh.

Having laughed at the notion that I am—and indeed it is far funnier, because more absurd, than the notion that I am not, which raised a good laugh when one first noticed it—what then? Conceptually I am, and how. Supra-conceptually there is laughter. Which do I choose? There is no choosing. I am and I am not—as long as I live.

[Corri]

Owen:

Corri: And in order for your material world to exist and function, there can be "nothing" to interfere with it, obstruct it, or it simply cannot be.

And how do you know that this is true?

You mean, can I prove it? Yes, I can. But you do it yourself and already have. Now, I warn you, it is illusive, so you really have to pay attention or you won't see it.

Okay. Let's take your proof. "Nothing exists is contradictory."

By conceptualizing nothing, it has become what it isn't.

By thinking your thoughts, it becomes what it isn't.

By attempting to ponder it, it becomes what it isn't.

By concluding your proof, it becomes what it isn't.

By labeling a thing as red, or pretty, or big, it becomes what it isn't.

By perceiving "I", it becomes what it isn't.

Corri

[Owen]

Corri:
What is “I” if it is not a presence? I am a presence, if anything. But where there is a presence there can be an absence. Therefore, if I am a presence I can also be an absence. But then, of course, an absence implies a presence. An absence is also a presence, a presence an absence, and “I” am not-I, and “Not-I” am I. Non-existence implies existence, so that I cannot not exist without existing. No, I cannot be disposed of, for in disposing of me my existence is thereby posed. I am a concept, and all concepts are dualistic, so that my inexistence cannot be thought.


"I exist" cannot be denied by anyone!

The very process of denying "I exist", entails my existence.

Not-I, is not a well formed expression ..it is meaningless.
'Not' applies to propositions and propositional forms only.
It does not apply to objects.

It seems to me that you misunderstand the meaning of 'existence'.

'x exists' means there is at least one property that x has.

There is no thing that has the property of non-existence.

e.g. The present king of France has non-existence ...is contradictory.

Even though it is true to say that "It is not the case that: The present king of France exists".

Non-existence is not a property of anything.

It is false to say ..Nothing has existence.
And, it is false to say Nothing has non-existence.
There is no property that 'nothing' has at all.

I exist, is true for any person who understands what "I exist" means.

If X reads and understands "I exist" then X has at least one property that is true of it,...i.e. X exists!

E!x =df EF(Fx), for all x's that are given or described.

[Corri]

Owen:

You have only repeated what I posted.

"I exist" cannot be denied by anyone!

Correct. I am a concept, and all concepts are dualistic, so that my inexistence cannot be thought.

The very process of denying "I exist", entails my existence.

Correct. This was stated as well.

Not-I, is not a well formed expression ..it is meaningless.

Correct. I don't know about well-formed or not... but certainly meaningless. Which is my point.

e.g. The present king of France has non-existence ...is contradictory. Even though it is true to say that "It is not the case that: The present king of France exists".

So? Speaking a contradiction, proving a contradiction, conceptualizing the untruth, is IT becoming what IT is not. That is my point.

There is no property that 'nothing' has at all.

That is correct. I believe I have stated this numerous times.

I exist, is true for any person who understands what "I exist" means.

And even for those who do not.

If X reads and understands "I exist" then X has at least one property that is true of it,...i.e. X exists!

And: There is no property that 'nothing' has at all. Which allows for the doing, the creating, the re-reading of: E!x =df EF(Fx), for all x's that are given or described. Which does have property.

Do you see?

Corri

[sahyo]

:lol:

[Corri]

:)

[sahyo]

:)

[Corri]

Owen:

In other words, when I read: Nothing exists, is contradictory.

I see the conclusion you make having less to do with the existence or non-existence of a concept, but merely proving that contradiction "IS." You conclude that if something is a contradiction, it cannot be. You've proven 'contradiction,' can be, and in fact 'is,' and you've proven 'cannot be.'

It seems to me that you are declaring what you have proven as final, but have missed its significance because you cannot fathom 'cannot be.' Nothing having no property whatsoever allows you to dismiss it without regarding its tangible significance.

This is an assumption on my part. I've meant no insult.

Corri

[Corri]

Do you really believe that: Nothing causes something?!

I am saying: Without Nothing, Something is Not.

-- OR --

In the absence of that which you are not, that which you are, is not.

Corri

[sahyo]

but you still posted


This is an assumption on my part.

[Corri]

Assumption referring to what I perceive he does or does not get. Not the statements I made regarding nothing. All knowing is beyond me or concept. Verbal/written expression is all I have at my disposal. Or silence. Silence is. Practice deepens.

"THOSE WHO HAVE NOT ATTAINED AWAKENING SHOULD PENETRATE INTO THE MEANING OF REALITY, WHILE THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY ATTAINED SHOULD PRACTICE GIVING VERBAL EXPRESSION TO THAT REALITY"

Corri

[sahyo]

This is an assumption on my part.


"I know you can hear, there is no trouble about it - but you cannot listen. Listening is totally different from hearing. Listening means hearing without mind; listening means hearing without any interference of your thoughts; listening means hearing as if you are totally empty. If you have even a small trembling of thinking inside, waves of subtle thoughts surrounding you, you will not be able to listen, although you will be able to hear. And to listen to the music, the ancient music, the eternal music, one needs to be totally quiet - as if one is not. When you are, you can hear; when you are not, you can listen."

[Corri]

as if one is not.

as if?

[sahyo]

"THOSE WHO HAVE NOT ATTAINED AWAKENING SHOULD PENETRATE INTO THE MEANING OF REALITY, WHILE THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY ATTAINED SHOULD PRACTICE GIVING VERBAL EXPRESSION TO THAT REALITY"


THOSE?
WHO?
ATTAINED as though seeming-something which can attain and to attain?
SHOULD-shouldn't?
MEANING OF REALITY as though meaning?

;)

[sahyo]

And to listen to the music, the ancient music, the eternal music, one needs to be totally quiet - as if one is not. When you are, you can hear; when you are not, you can listen."



as if?



yes listening "as if one is not"
(meditation technique)

[Owen]

Corri:
It seems to me that you are declaring what you have proven as final, but have missed its significance because you cannot fathom 'cannot be.' Nothing having no property whatsoever allows you to dismiss it without regarding its tangible significance.

There cannot be 'a tangible significance' for nothing.

Nothing has a tangible significance, is a contradiction, ..within classical predicate logic.

What logical system do you use?

[Corri]

Owen:

Step outside of classical predicate logic for a moment, and look at your proof with different eyes. You have a very specific concept of nothing (making it, in fact, a thing) that is not allowing you to acknowledge what is not concept.

It is the instant before your mind denies that you realize it. How is it possible to have something without nothing? Absence implies presence; presence implies absence.

Without nothing, something is not.

In the absence of that which you are not, that which you are, is not.

Corri

[sahyo]

It is the instant before your mind denies that you realize it


seems "before"?

[Corri]

asheera:

I understand what you are saying. Understand that when 'listening' there is no 'as if.' I is not.

"After the Buddha attained Awakening and was considering whether or not to teach the Dharma, he perceived that there were four categories of beings: those of swift understanding, who would gain Awakening after a short explanation of the Dharma (ugghatitaññu); those who would gain Awakening only after a lengthy explanation (vipacitaññu); those who would gain Awakening only after being led through the practice (neyya); and those who, instead of gaining Awakening, would at best gain only a verbal understanding of the Dharma (padaparama). As stated above, following his Enlightenment the Buddha seriously considered not even attempting to teach his newfound Truths because he despaired anyone being able to understand:

"The Enlightenment won by me is deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand," the Buddha thought on the night of his awakening. "...For human beings this would be a matter difficult to see... If I were to teach [it] and others were not to understand me, that would be a weariness to me, that would be a vexation to me."

His decision, of course, was to teach.

The most profound meaning of Dharma is understood to transcend words (to this referred). In Buddhism, teachings are clearly not viewed as the goal itself, but as useful in pointing to, suggesting, leading to, that goal.

Yet. Point acknowledged.

Corri


His decision, of course, was to TEACH. That opened the door for OTHERS to follow.

[Corri]

seems "before"?

:lol:

Owen thinks in terms of before, during, after.

Corri

[Owen]

Corri:
Step outside of classical predicate logic for a moment, and look at your proof with different eyes. You have a very specific concept of nothing (making it, in fact, a thing) that is not allowing you to acknowledge what is not concept.

Wrong.
We can describe 'nothing' as that which is and is not.
Because we can describe the idea does not entail that there is something which that desciption refers to.

Similarily; the present king of France' describes a purported object which does not exist.

The x such that: Fx & ~Fx, cannot exist ..in predicate logic.

Again, What system of reasoning do you use to arrive at your conclusions?

We can verify my reasoning, but, we cannot verify yours.

Please tell us how you decide what is true and what is not true!

Without this information, none of your remarks have sense.

Corri:
It is the instant before your mind denies that you realize it. How is it possible to have something without nothing? Absence implies presence; presence implies absence.

Nonsense. surely you do not mean to say (Absense = Presence),
do you?

Corri:
Without nothing, something is not.
In the absence of that which you are not, that which you are, is not.

??? More nonsense, unless you can show how you know these things.
Without the capacity of deciding the truth of your remarks, they are meaningless ..for everyone.

Truth only has meaning 'relative' to the system that decides it.

Should I believe your claims without any justification?
Is there some sort of magic goiing on here?
Do you claim that 'God did it'?

Empty rhetoric is not a reasonable substitute for logic, at all.

[Corri]

Owen:

You still have not addressed my question to you: How can Something possibly exist without Nothing?

But we can move on anyway. I have no idea what my reasoning is called. That it has to have a name in order to 'be' is mystifying to me.

Corri: Without nothing, something is not.
In the absence of that which you are not, that which you are, is not.

??? More nonsense, unless you can show how you know these things.
Without the capacity of deciding the truth of your remarks, they are meaningless ..for everyone.

Not true. There are plenty of people who will tell you exactly what I am saying. They may say it in a different way, more than likely in a more clear way...

Truth only has meaning 'relative' to the system that decides it.

Have you heard of "Shadows of the Mind," by Roger Penrose? There's all sorts of proofs you can dabble with there.

(1) Assume my reasoning powers are captured by some formal system F (to put this more briefly, "I am F"). Consider the class of statements I can know to be true, given this assumption.

(2) Given that I know that I am F, I know that F is sound (as I know that I am sound). Indeed, I know that the larger system F' is sound, where F' is F supplemented by the further assumption "I am F". (Supplementing a sound system with a true statement yields a sound system.)

(3) So I know that G(F') is true, where this is the Gödel sentence of the system F'.

(4) But F' could not see that G(F') is true (by Gödel's theorem).

(5) By assumption, however, I am now effectively equivalent to F'. After all, I am F supplemented by the knowledge that I am F.

(6) This is a contradiction, so the initial assumption must be false, and F must not have captured my powers of reasoning after all.

(7) The conclusion generalizes: my reasoning powers cannot be captured by any formal system.

Strictly speaking, the conclusion that must be drawn is that I cannot know that I am identical to a formal system F; in showing that I can see the truth of G(F'), we assumed not just that I am F but that I know I am F. But this is still a strong conclusion. For example, it would rule out even the possibility that we could empirically discover that we were identical to some system F -- if we were to "discover" this, the reasoning would lead us to a contradiction. So even this would be threatening to the prospects of AI.

And before you head down the road of argument, let me say that I'm sure you have one. And before you throw it out to me, let's consider Quantum mechanics. You know, don't you, that in scientific terms, the mind doesn't exist at all.

We cannot predict what individual particles are going to do. We cannot even know exactly where they are and how fast they are going. There is an absolute, concrete limit to the amount of information we can have about matter. This limit is stronger than the speed of light, it is stronger than time and space, it is absolute. An individual particle is fundamentally unknowable, and that tends to blow a hole in your verifiable proof.

Another big missing piece, aside from the whole probability problem, is knowing when and how quantum decisions are made. We know a particle will eventually show up either here or there, showing which decision was made. However, the theory doesn't force the particle to make the decision. In quantum mechanics, particles can be in two places at once. The theory is extremely well proven, and it is a source of serious head scratching among people who worry about this sort of thing when they try to understand why we only see the particle in one place.

And when we can't make it all fit together and be verifiable in any other way, I'm sure we'll come up with something called the Chaos Therory to cover it. Oh. Wait. We did that already.

But beyond scientific and logical debate, you and I are still left with writing proofs on a piece of paper and proving Nothing. Owen, I am beyond proofs and paper. It does make nice orderly sense, and if one takes comfort from a verifiable proof written out on a piece of paper, then that is great. There is no judgment attached.

But I am telling you there is another way to look at it beyond proofs and paper. I cannot 'give' you my knowing. I can't hand it to you and say "Owen, run a proof on it, and if you are comfortable with the outcome, you can leap." I can tell you of my knowing, (although I do have to say that Asheera does take issue with all the 'shoulds' and 'seems' and 'assume' words I use) and you can see if you find it yourself.

Otherwise, I guess we should agree to disagree, and go forth in peace.

Corri

[sahyo]

We cannot predict what individual particles are going to do.



yet assumed:


although I do have to say that Asheera does take issue with all the 'shoulds' and 'seems' and 'assume' words I use



no, wasn't an issue with the the words used

:)

[Corri]

Then please clear it up for me.

:)

Corri

[Corri]

We cannot predict what individual particles are going to do.

yet assumed:

although I do have to say that Asheera does take issue with all the 'shoulds' and 'seems' and 'assume' words I use

no, wasn't an issue with the the words used

Stuck point-of-view. Predicted. Projected.

???

Corri

[sahyo]

:)



Then please clear it up for me.



only called corri can



Stuck point-of-view. Predicted. Projected.

???



seems can?

[Corri]

asheera

:)

[a random hack]

"After the Buddha attained Awakening and was considering whether or not to teach the Dharma, he perceived that there were four categories of beings: those of swift understanding, who would gain Awakening after a short explanation of the Dharma (ugghatitaññu); those who would gain Awakening only after a lengthy explanation (vipacitaññu); those who would gain Awakening only after being led through the practice (neyya); and those who, instead of gaining Awakening, would at best gain only a verbal understanding of the Dharma (padaparama). As stated above, following his Enlightenment the Buddha seriously considered not even attempting to teach his newfound Truths because he despaired anyone being able to understand:


which cartegory did Buddha belong to?

[Corri]

Owen:

Are you out there? Can you start up this discussion with me again, please? See comments below quote.

Nothing exists, is contradictory.
Nothing exists, means, It is not the case that something exists.

(Nothing exists) <-> ~(Something exists)
Something exists <-> ~(Nothing exists)

Something exists, means, there is an x such that: x exists.
Something exists, means, Ex(x exists). (ExE!x)

x exists, is defined, there is some y such that: x is equal to y.
E!x =df Ey(x=y).

Something exists, means, Ex[Ey(x=y)].

Nothing exists, means, ~Ex[Ey(x=y)].

Because, (nothing exists) <-> ~(something exists).


But, ExEy(x=y) is a theorem.

1. Ax[x=x] and 2. AxAy[x=y -> (Fx <-> Fy)] are the axioms of identity theory, within first order predicate logic.


ExEy(x=y)

Proof:

1. Ax(x=x) -> a=a
2. a=a -> Ey(a=y).
3. Ey(a=y) -> Ex[Ey(x=y)].
4. Ax(x=x) -> ExEy(x=y).
5. ExEy(x=y).
By axiom 1, Ax(x=x).

If we use the second order Leibnitz-Russell definition of identity,
x=y =df AF(Fx <-> Fy), then ..

x=x means AF(Fx <-> Fx), which is clearly tautologous for all x.


Therefore ~ExEy(x=y) is a contradiction.

i.e. Nothing exists is a contradiction.

What do you think about 'Nothing exists' ?

Owen

See, I realize why this proof is bothering me. And it is this:

Nothing exists, means, It is not the case that something exists.

This --> It is not the case that something exists is not the definition of Nothing (at least not the only one). The above statement puts Nothing and Something in the form of opposites. Nothing is not the opposite of something (not in all cases).

Nothing is absolute. It has no opposite. It would be more accurate to say that Nothing is not not. Which would change your next statement to: It is not not the case that something exists.

Your conclusion of this proof says that Nothing exists is a contradiction, which does in fact make Nothing describable, but does not prove that Nothing is in contradiction of something, for they are not opposites. Or, in another way, Nothing is not the negative of something.

Corri

[Corri]

We can describe 'nothing' as that which is and is not.

Agreed. 100%

Because we can describe the idea does not entail that there is something which that desciption refers to.

At what point in time? If it has never existed, it does not mean it will not ever exist. Similarly, because it did exist does not mean that is does now.

Similarily; the present king of France' describes a purported object which does not exist.

...at this moment in time. But this is not an absolute statement. Meaning, this sentence does not cover every instance absolutely, because, at one time, that statement was in fact true.

The x such that: Fx & ~Fx, cannot exist ..in predicate logic.

Doesn't mean that it isn't so (by the way, I'd like a translation of that... if you don't mind, please, just for my own personal edification :) )

Again, What system of reasoning do you use to arrive at your conclusions?
We can verify my reasoning, but, we cannot verify yours. Please tell us how you decide what is true and what is not true!

We most certainly can verify my reasoning, and I would love to show it to you so that I might discuss it with you.... I think your proof is really, really, really on to something, and I'd really like to disucss it with you. And the way I decide if something is true AND is not true, is if it is a contradiction. It is the only way... otherwise, you are dealing with OR, ie., absolute or ZERO, if you will.

Corri

[Owen]

Originally posted by Corri@Nov 4 2004, 02:51 AM
Owen:

Are you out there? Can you start up this discussion with me again, please? See comments below quote.

Nothing exists, is contradictory.
Nothing exists, means, It is not the case that something exists.

(Nothing exists) <-> ~(Something exists)
Something exists <-> ~(Nothing exists)

Something exists, means, there is an x such that: x exists.
Something exists, means, Ex(x exists). (ExE!x)

x exists, is defined, there is some y such that: x is equal to y.
E!x =df Ey(x=y).

Something exists, means, Ex[Ey(x=y)].

Nothing exists, means, ~Ex[Ey(x=y)].

Because, (nothing exists) <-> ~(something exists).


But, ExEy(x=y) is a theorem.

1. Ax[x=x] and 2. AxAy[x=y -> (Fx <-> Fy)] are the axioms of identity theory, within first order predicate logic.


ExEy(x=y)

Proof:

1. Ax(x=x) -> a=a
2. a=a -> Ey(a=y).
3. Ey(a=y) -> Ex[Ey(x=y)].
4. Ax(x=x) -> ExEy(x=y).
5. ExEy(x=y).
By axiom 1, Ax(x=x).

If we use the second order Leibnitz-Russell definition of identity,
x=y =df AF(Fx <-> Fy), then ..

x=x means AF(Fx <-> Fx), which is clearly tautologous for all x.


Therefore ~ExEy(x=y) is a contradiction.

i.e. Nothing exists is a contradiction.

What do you think about 'Nothing exists' ?

Owen

See, I realize why this proof is bothering me. And it is this:

Nothing exists, means, It is not the case that something exists.

This --> It is not the case that something exists is not the definition of Nothing (at least not the only one). The above statement puts Nothing and Something in the form of opposites. Nothing is not the opposite of something (not in all cases).

Nothing is absolute. It has no opposite. It would be more accurate to say that Nothing is not not. Which would change your next statement to: It is not not the case that something exists.

Your conclusion of this proof says that Nothing exists is a contradiction, which does in fact make Nothing describable, but does not prove that Nothing is in contradiction of something, for they are not opposites. Or, in another way, Nothing is not the negative of something.

Corri
Owen:
Are you out there? Can you start up this discussion with me again, please? See comments below quote.

Hello again, Corri,

QUOTE
Because we can describe the idea does not entail that there is something which that description refers to.

Corri:
At what point in time? If it has never existed, it does not mean it will not ever exist. Similarly, because it did exist does not mean that is does now.

The time in which a thing exists is relevant only if it does exist.
Time is not a consideration for that which does not logically exist.
There is no time in which non-existent things exist!

QUOTE
Similarily; the present king of France' describes a purported object which does not exist.

Corri:
...at this moment in time. But this is not an absolute statement. Meaning, this sentence does not cover every instance absolutely, because, at one time, that statement was in fact true.

It is assumed that Now is this moment in time...the present.
Clearly, at this moment in time, there are no kings of France.

It is very doubtful that there are any 'absolute' statements.
What do you mean by 'absolute'?

[Corri]

OWEN!!!

Oh, thank you for responding...!!

The time in which a thing exists is relevant only if it does exist.
Time is not a consideration for that which does not logically exist.
There is no time in which non-existent things exist!

Believe it or not, there is. Be patient, I'll show you.

Similarily; the present king of France' describes a purported object which does not exist.
...at this moment in time. But this is not an absolute statement. Meaning, this sentence does not cover every instance absolutely, because, at one time, that statement was in fact true.

It is assumed that Now is this moment in time...the present.
Clearly, at this moment in time, there are no kings of France.

But this doesn't have anything to do with what your proof is saying and concluding. Meaning, it is true now, but it may not always be true, and it certainly was not the case at one point in the past. The conclusion of your proof implies 'in all instances.' But in any event, let's let the King thing go for now, or we could argue this forever, and it really isn't relevant. The King of France and his present state (or non-state) is not why I dragged you back here.

It is very doubtful that there are any 'absolute' statements.

How about Nothing IS and IS NOT?

What do you mean by 'absolute'?

100% true in every single solitary instance. Irrefutable. Pure. Can we agree that this is what absolute is? Do you want to define it? But let's make sure we agree on it, so we have a common understanding.

Corri

[Owen]

QUOTE
It is very doubtful that there are any 'absolute' statements.

Corri:
How about Nothing IS and IS NOT?

Do you mean: Nothing exists, and, Nothing does not exist?

If so, it is contradictory. Because .. Nothing exists, is contradictory. (within classical logic)

If you mean: Nothing exists, or, Nothing does not exist, then it is true. But, it is not absolutly true.

QUOTE
What do you mean by 'absolute'?

Corri:
100% true in every single solitary instance. Irrefutable. Pure. Can we agree that this is what absolute is?

No. We need to add, 'at all possible times'.

Corri:
Do you want to define it? But let's make sure we agree on it, so we have a common understanding.

OK.

Note that, logical necessity is not absolute truth.

There cannot be any truths 'at all possible times'.
Because:
1.Truth is a conception of mind. (it applies only to linguistic things, namely statements)
2. Mind is time dependent.
3. Without mind there is no truth at all.
4. There was a time in which there were no minds.
therfore,
5. There are no absolute truths.

2+2=4, has no possible meaning without mind, does it?

Truth is that which can be decided.
Truth has sense only with respect to the system that shows that it is the case.

When we say that (p is true) we mean wrt the system of classical logic, unless we specify some other method of decision.

[Corri]

Owen:

Do you mean: Nothing exists, and, Nothing does not exist? If so, it is contradictory. Because .. Nothing exists, is contradictory. (within classical logic)

Yes, that is what I mean... and I am not trying to convince you that I am right and you are wrong here. Really. I need your help looking at something, because for the life of me, I can't see it any other way... now, I will be the first to admit I can get illogical really fast... but what I am looking at is illogical to me... but it is perfectly logical.... and that makes no sense.

So our definition of absolute is: 100% true in every single solitary instance. Irrefutable. Pure. At all possible times.

Note that, logical necessity is not absolute truth. There cannot be any truths 'at all possible times', because:

1.Truth is a conception of mind. (it applies only to linguistic things, namely statements)
2. Mind is time dependent.
3. Without mind there is no truth at all.
4. There was a time in which there were no minds.
therfore,
5. There are no absolute truths.

2+2=4, has no possible meaning without mind, does it?

Truth is that which can be decided. Truth has sense only with respect to the system that shows that it is the case.

But isn't that statement absolute, in and of itself? See what I mean?

There is a supposition among a number of physicists (but not all), that our universe would not be here if there was no one to observe it... it is called the Anthropic Principle. If the creation of the universe varied in the slightest, meaning, if it had not happened exactly as it had, we would not be here. Current evidence supports this model that the universe was created specifically to create/support life (so it would have an observer). The evidence is extremely strong, but not absolute, because we can only go back to within one second of the Big Bang. One second seems miniscule to me, but to a physicist, it isn't. Currently, all known laws of physics break down at that one second mark. The only thing that can explain that duration of one second, currently, is God. And physcists, even those who believe in God, don't like that answer.

I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm just putting that out there for you to keep in mind.

So... you keep my story in mind about the Universe, and I'll keep in mind your point about 'absolute' truth, because I think at some point here, the two are going to overlap. Ready? Anything you want to add at this point?

Corri

[Owen]

"There cannot be any truths 'at all possible times'"

Corri:
But isn't that statement absolute, in and of itself? See what I mean?

No, "There cannot be any truths 'at all possible times'", is not true at all possible times.
It is true only with regard to a specified logic, as are all truths.
Because, there cannot be truths when there are no minds.

If we are given the condition that there are minds then, logically necessary truths are still only true with respect to the system that decides them. And, there are many such systems.

If you believe that all truth is absolute truth, then there is a contradiction. But, I do not believe that all truths are absolute truths, do you?

Corri:
There is a supposition among a number of physicists (but not all), that our universe would not be here if there was no one to observe it... it is called the Anthropic Principle.

I do not believe this. Of course we believe there were existent things before the presence of people, but, we cannot know it.

There is no possibility of verifying any proposed truth if there are no minds.

Non-existent things can do no-thing at all.

Surely we do believe that: the mountains did exist before man.

Corri:
If the creation of the universe varied in the slightest, meaning, if it had not happened exactly as it had, we would not be here.

How is it possible to decide such statements?

Corri:
Current evidence supports this model that the universe was created specifically to create/support life (so it would have an observer).

I don't believe this one either. What proof do you (or they) have that shows that the universe was created at all, let alone that it has this selfish purpose.
Neither scientist nor theist can assert that the universe had a beginning!

Corri:
The evidence is extremely strong, but not absolute, because we can only go back to within one second of the Big Bang. One second seems miniscule to me, but to a physicist, it isn't. Currently, all known laws of physics break down at that one second mark.

I consider this point of view "theoretical gibberish".

Corri:
The only thing that can explain that duration of one second, currently, is God. And physcists, even those who believe in God, don't like that answer.

That God did it, is more irrational than the Big Bang theories.

Corri:
I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm just putting that out there for you to keep in mind.

I am happy to dismiss all of these points of view.

Corri:
So... you keep my story in mind about the Universe, and I'll keep in mind your point about 'absolute' truth, because I think at some point here, the two are going to overlap. Ready? Anything you want to add at this point?

The universe, is the totality of all that exists.
Including "all that is the case"...Wittgenstein.

It includes gods, if such there be.

Historically we have invented Gods to help explain our universe,
but, science and logic have advanced to a stage where (many) people do not need any Gods to explain the universe.

Of course all of my remarks should be prefaced with, It is my opinion that.

[Corri]

Owen:

Okay, so we are not ready to move on. :)

"There cannot be any truths 'at all possible times'", is not true at all possible times.

Then that is an absolute statement. And so is this --> Because, there cannot be truths when there are no minds.

If you do not believe that all truths are absolute truths, then I would say that you cannot say 'Because, there cannot be truths when there are no minds' definitively.

Non-existent things can do no-thing at all.

Again, another absolute statement. (You make them quite a bit for one who does not believe in them :) ) But I would say it all depends on how you define 'existence.' Everything that we know of, is a form of energy. Energy cannot be created and it cannot be destroyed, within a closed system (which is a contradiction itself).

I do not believe this. Of course we believe there were existent things before the presence of people, but, we cannot know it. There is no possibility of verifying any proposed truth if there are no minds.

Owen, do you realize you are contradicting yourself? I just explained to you the Anthropic Principle, you tell me it's hogwash, yet you make the very statement that supports the principle.

The universe, is the totality of all that exists. Including "all that is the case."

You just did it again. You quote someone in support of your view, yet you've already told me that 'there cannot be truths when there are no minds'. So how in the world can this statement claim anything of what the universe, is or is not, prior to our arrival? You downplay physics, yet you put up a statement like this. Please explain.

Historically we have invented Gods to help explain our universe, but, science and logic have advanced to a stage where (many) people do not need any Gods to explain the universe.

Just because one doesn't have 'a need' for God doesn't mean He isn't there. Doesn't mean He is, either, so this statement is complete conjecture.

Corri

[sahyo]

universe would not be here if there was no one to observe it

when happens imaging as though "one to observe it" ceases,
called "universe" doesn't cease happening




http://www.angelfire.com/un/lishah/4a.jpg

[Corri]

Asheera:

Valid point, understanding is. This is 'conceptual exchange happening.' Meaning, you aren't the one in need of the conversation, hm? For there is no you, and there is no need.

Corri

[sahyo]

the post was responsing


universe would not be here if there was no one to observe it

[sahyo]

Valid point, understanding is. This is 'conceptual exchange happening.' Meaning, you aren't the one in need of the conversation, hm? For there is no you, and there is no need.



:)

"exchange"?

[Corri]

Yup. Right now, I'm dreaming it. You must be, too, to question it?

Corri

[sahyo]

"exchange"?


seemed was questioning "exchange"?

[Corri]

No seems....

[sahyo]

No seems....



yet posted:


exchange happening



Right now, I'm dreaming it. You must be, too, to question it?

[Corri]

Asheera no hearing.

[sahyo]

:lol:

[jesupocaplypse]

Jesapocalypse finally gonna bite down and question::


ASHEERA!!! What's your deal? I can read and understand everyone on this forum instantly, but when You post, ... i have to stop and think and crunch and think and struggle to figure out what it is that you are actually saying or questioning...

Mayhaps, your just not so good with the english... mayhaps your speaking/typing as you do purposefully... and just being strange and enigmatic... (which i do love by the way) or perhaps I'm just not closing my eyes and singing enough.

Whatever the answer... I feel powerfully a need for explaination, so as to hopefully understand this wonderfully bizarre creature that Asheera is. Even if that explaination just leads me further down the road to madness... a road is a road and i will walk it cause i'm on it.


You have intrigued me.
What is you?


I is I. And I is wishing to .... Understand you. Where is Asheera from would help... For One cannot know Oneself nor where One is going, without knowing where One is coming from...

"when happens imaging as though "one to observe it" ceases,
called "universe" doesn't cease happening"

a tree falls in the forest....

[sahyo]

Jesapocalypse finally gonna bite down and question::


ASHEERA!!! What's your deal? I can read and understand everyone on this forum instantly, but when You post, ... i have to stop and think and crunch and think and struggle to figure out what it is that you are actually saying or questioning...



figure out what?...can a-what to figure out?



Mayhaps, your just not so good with the english...



hhhhaps :)



mayhaps your speaking/typing as you do purposefully... and just being strange and enigmatic... (which i do love by the way)



singing, cannot not near not far nor inbetween, singing



or perhaps I'm just not closing my eyes and singing enough.



hhhhhhhhh
mmmmmmmmmm



Whatever the answer... I feel powerfully a need for explaination, so as to hopefully understand this wonderfully bizarre creature that Asheera is.



mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
cannot answering noanswering, cannot explaining noexplaining :)
hhhhhhhhhhhhh



Even if that explaination just leads me further down the road to madness... a road is a road and i will walk it cause i'm on it.



:applause:



You have intrigued me.
What is you?



questioning-answering not you not me not we nor hear nor see, though



I is I. And I is wishing to .... Understand you. Where is Asheera from would help... For One cannot know Oneself nor where One is going, without knowing where One is coming from...



can One-I-you wishing?, dear, can coming-going-through as though where?

sapping-flowering-sapping



"when happens imaging as though "one to observe it" ceases,
called "universe" doesn't cease happening"

a tree falls in the forest....




http://www.angelfire.com/un/lishah/ing.jpg

[jesupocaplypse]

<_<

Yes.

:think:


:dance:

:examine: figuring out... or figuring in?

is absolute?
Absolute is.

question answers self.... self answers question

question/answer not is,
is of.

[sahyo]

"of"?

[sahyo]

is absolute?
Absolute is.

did think that stuff when babe?

:D

[jesupocaplypse]

_ is. is absolute.

_ is? _ is of? is relative


"questioning-answering not you not me not we nor hear nor see, though"

Is.

Is of

:uhoh: .......I is confused self due to Two letter word...

:duh:

[jesupocaplypse]

Originally posted by asheera@Nov 15 2004, 12:43 AM


did think that stuff when babe?


not in so many words... ;)

[sahyo]

_ is. is absolute.

_ is? _ is of? is relative

can_ re-lating as though from-to-what?

"questioning-answering not you not me not we nor hear nor see, though"

Is.

Is of

:uhoh: .......I is confused self due to Two letter word...

:duh:

.......hehehehe...

what I-self?....can words confuse if not meaning them? ;)

[sahyo]

is a-what which words can confusing? :)

[sahyo]

but a chinook comes
and brings with it warm melting
snow turns to water



:D

haps
chinook
'of'?

[sahyo]

melt
of?

[jesupocaplypse]

Weather is.
Chinook is of Weather

nook of chi :P

melt of warmth

words confuse when not meaning them

I-Self is confused most times. :D

especially when over tired

[sahyo]

over tired



:hug:

[sahyo]

words confuse when not meaning them

vibrating confuses?

[jesupocaplypse]

'vibrating' not confuses

the word vibrating might though, depending on use and context...

[sahyo]

:)