What I want with this post, is that you try to post something that is irrefutable, like "nothing is nothing" and such things. Things that is *not* up for discussion. They should be so clean that they are almost self-invented.

I want the truth, try not to put it in your own words, but try to express the truth as is.

If you want to interpret it for us, then do so below the truth (I want it as clean as possible).

It should be obvious, and be the same in any scenario, for instance this doesn't count "what goes up must come down" as it is not allways true in space.

Take this seriously, it's in my view a nice experiment.

How about:
Absolutely nothing is absolutely dependent on absolutely everything being absolutely dependent on absolutely everything.

For the the existence of nothing requires that everything be dependent on everything.

Cyperium:
What I want with this post, is that you try to post something that is irrefutable, like "nothing is nothing" and such things. Things that is *not* up for discussion. They should be so clean that they are almost self-invented.



Explaining the meaning of overmuch is overmuch.

Good?

Quantum Quack:
Absolutely nothing is absolutely dependent on absolutely everything being absolutely dependent on absolutely everything.


But being absolutely certain of this absolute is absolutely dependent on an absolute idea of nothing being absolutely tied to absolutely everything.
Which means you can be either absolutely right.
Or absolutely wrong.

Unless your absolute conjectures were made objectively- impossible when dealing with Nothing.

But being absolutely certain of this absolute is absolutely dependent on an absolute idea of nothing being absolutely tied to absolutely everything.
Which means you can be either absolutely right.
Or absolutely wrong.
:D :D If I am absolutely wrong then that means I am absolutely right and vicer versa....

Along time ago I attempted to answer the question of what "isn't' nothing.

I found that nothing "isn't" any-thing. And if we take everything and apply absoluteness to everything's relationship with everything then and only then can absolutely nothing not exist.

if the universal relationship was not absolute then nothing would exist thus become something.......[a relationship that doesn't exists can be determined as not existing thus a non-existent relationship has a value] but for nothing to not exist everything must prevent it from being so......

I know it is circular and convoluted and paradoxical and probably just plain BS but.....well.......it aint nothing of importance any how...... :D

QQ:
If I am absolutely wrong then that means I am absolutely right and vicer versa....


Not unless we place a disclaimer on the statement and make it Hegelian.

I found that nothing "isn't" any-thing. And if we take everything and apply absoluteness to everything's relationship with everything then and only then can absolutely nothing not exist.
Examine the statements.

At first, it states that you need everthing in order for nothing to exist.
Then says you need everything in order for it not to.
Consider that for nothing to exist, language must ignore it.

I can even contradict myself, the way you have:

if the universal relationship was not absolute then nothing would exist thus become something.......[a relationship that doesn't exists can be determined as not existing thus a non-existent relationship has a value] but for nothing to not exist everything must prevent it from being so......

Examining the language, you'll notice you and I have said nothing at all.
Therefore with language, we've created nothing.


(these "philosophies" are pointless, granted, but are nice distractions)

Not exactly on topic, but I thought of something:

Therefore with language, we've created nothing.

Hm. Are you sure that language is in charge of that?

Consider this:

Niels Bohr had a horseshoe hanging over his door. When asked, whether he really believes that horseshoes bring luck, he answered: "No, but I was told that a horseshoe will bring luck also to those who don't believe in this."

Rewritten, this goes:

A: Niels Bohr believes: "The horseshoe will not bring me luck."
B: Niels Bohr believes: "Horseshoes bring luck to those who don't believe that they will bring them luck."

There is no contradiction between the statments in parenthesis. But we get an inconsistency if we add the first part, Niels Bohr believes.
As if he at the same time believes that the horseshoe will not bring him luck, as well as that the horseshoe will bring him luck.

So, is it really language that is to be blamed for the inconsistency?
Or is that when we think, we think *both* the statement and the meta-statement (the meta-statement placing the statement in a certain context, thereby making it meaningful), and those classical contradictions and inconsistencies (like "The following sentence is true. The previous sentence is false.") arise from us not clearly separating the statement from the meta-statement -- which is a matter of logic, not of language?

This seems awfully appealing to me.

I think that Niels was probably joking. I bet the real reason for hanging the horseshoe is a.) aesthetic reasons or b.) just so that people will ask him about it so that he can break out his witty saying.

I'm betting b is more likely. People often set up little things like that around their house so that when questioned they can break out there stock phrase to appear witty.

Because the one thing that Niels Bohr really abhorred was being a bore.

Vert:
I think that Niels was probably joking. I bet the real reason for hanging the horseshoe is a.) aesthetic reasons or b.) just so that people will ask him about it so that he can break out his witty saying.


I think so too.
B.

Like having a hole in my pants- so idiots can ask why and hear me tell them its air conditioning.

Rosa:


A: Niels Bohr believes: "The horseshoe will not bring me luck."
B: Niels Bohr believes: "Horseshoes bring luck to those who don't believe that they will bring them luck."

There is no contradiction between the statments in parenthesis. But we get an inconsistency if we add the first part, Niels Bohr believes.
Barring why it is I feel he hung the horseshoe -

So, is it really language that is to be blamed for the inconsistency?
Or is that when we think, we think *both* the statement and the meta-statement (the meta-statement placing the statement in a certain context, thereby making it meaningful), and those classical contradictions and inconsistencies (like "The following sentence is true. The previous sentence is false.") arise from us not clearly separating the statement from the meta-statement -- which is a matter of logic, not of language?
Slowing down, I notice much of logic has less to with truth as it does with language.

Language being the most technical of human communications, its sadly the only one for philosophy- and so, logic's realm.
The limits of one's language are the limits of one's world (Wittgenstein), and hence logic's- its in the same way we are limited in our vocabulary as compared to the Eskimo's who has about 7 different words for snow but none for war, as we do.

Its in the language that things are both created and lost, and to stick to topic, Nothing, its concept, too is created.
Throwing us off into obsessive tangents over nothing.
So I would say its a matter of language, not logic.

Examination of dialectic statements, every last verb and noun discoursing over non-things, is key.

hi all how you've been?
awesome
now nothing is just that no thing something of non-existance
now what is non-existance
let me answear that for you i ask
cause non-existance and nothing seem equal now
thus the equation stands as non-existance=nothing
why? nonexistance? nonexistance is no thing

Philosopher Philocrazy
the greatest philosopher of all great philosophers

Ojete:
Philosopher Philocrazy
the greatest philosopher of all great philosophers
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

nothing is nothing

philocrazy
the right philosopher

nothing is nothing
Created as soon as you wrote it, to some-thing.

and you proved me right,riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?
i ask now this,what now? that is something?
nothing is nothing!!!!!!!!
nothing//nothing=nothing--this is something!
nothing+nothing=nothing---and this!
nothing-nothing=nothing---and this!
nothingxnothing=nothing---and this!
what is nothing?-->all are!!!! because they talk about nothing!!!!!!
what is math when it deals with nothing?is it something of nothing
something is being created here out of nothing into something but nothing
is nothing and it leads to nothing
etc i am maths too(philosophy)

For evey positive there is a negative!

nothing//nothing=nothing
This is not true. It could also equal infinity. But personally it is a illogical nonsensical statement. Then to n+n = 2n is true n+n = n is false. n-n = 0 true n-n=n is false. This is simple mathematics. The concept of zero works well but the concept of nothing is undefined and abstract.
For every positive there is a negative!
in math this would hold true for a few functions but as an absolute truth I think not.

These are my absolute truths
1: There is no negative. There is no inversion of anything, only in math does negative have meaning.
2: There is no nothing. Indisputably true
3: 2+2 = 2*2 is always true. math is perfect.
4: n+n = n*n This is only true sometimes.
5: You exist. I can not prove it in any way, but you know its true.
6: There is no future and past. This is an absolute truth.

Philo:
and you proved me right,riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?
No, wrooooooooooooooooooooong.

Merely babbling about nothing being nothing, and then twirling your words like a magician would when caught on stage leaves nothing to prove.
Other than myself.
Hey looky, I created nothing again.

nothing//nothing=nothing--this is something!
nothing+nothing=nothing---and this!
nothing-nothing=nothing---and this!
nothingxnothing=nothing---and this!

No, no, no-

Nothing/zeitgeist^3 (Bacon's three idols + 22.5(nothingness)) * phenomena= and this!

C:
For evey positive there is a negative!
And for every object there is its complement!
Like the opposite of rice is non-rice!


This is not true. It could also equal infinity. But personally it is a illogical nonsensical statement.
All statements here are nonsensical.

I am not here.


I - that which is me... (or something)

am - not is... for if I is, then I ain't...

not - Neither Gordian, nor Granny...

here - Where it's at, man... you dig ?

'cuz... I mean... You know where I'm at, man...
I'm your jazz...

;)

The reason I posed this contention in the way I did:

Absolutely nothing is absolutely dependent on absolutely everything being absolutely dependent on absolutely everything.

Was that for nothing to not have value it must not exist.
And there fore it's nonexistence is determined only by default.

When absolutely everything is dependent on everything being dependent on everything, when absolutely everything is in a relationship with everything when no "nothings" can be found anywhere then and only then does evrything exist free of nothing which is non-existent by default only. [an extension of logic in absolutum]

to say that Tom is Tom because he is not Peter is valuing nothing by deductive reasoning. So in essence this is not a "nothing" but merely another "something." However to take it all the way to the extreme the default of "nothing" can only be achieved by the absolutelness of everything else.

Another way of looking at it is when we look at the concept of time:

Future, present, past:
I ask you what exist between the future and the past?
You may say the present does, or the 'Now' does. And I go on to ask you how much time does the "Now" take in it's existence?

Obviously the answer if you think about it is the "now" takes no time at all in fact the center of time is absolutely nothing, in that it can not be determined except by default and that default is everything we see and do and the universe in general as it changes through or in time continuuous.
The now only being a default existence because of the future and the past.
[and yet some will argue that the future and the past are also non-existent ....ha]

So the 'Now' doesn't exist. You and I do not exist in the Now but we exist all the same.

A paradox of nothingness and something simultaneously occuring.

In a way reality only exists by it's efffect and not it's substance, in that in substance it is naught but is experienced by it's effect [it's memeory of] the event horizon that is the "Now" only exists by the memory of it and not it's direct experience.

The future .....a fantasy yet to be
The now ......being only a memory.

ha....... I am a poet that don't know it.....

Emptying a bucket of worms on the table: the problems with the definitions of "language" and "logic".


Slowing down, I notice much of logic has less to with truth as it does with language.

This is because we are deriving our logic from language. We are forgetting actual empirical reality.
For some (stupid?) reason, we aren't thinking that logic comes from the way we perceive the world in space and time: If I put my watch in a box, and the box in the drawer, the watch will be in the drawer. If A is B, and B is C, then A is C. There really is no need for language to make this structure we can simplify using Venn's diagrams.


The limits of one's language are the limits of one's world (Wittgenstein), and hence logic's- its in the same way we are limited in our vocabulary as compared to the Eskimo's who has about 7 different words for snow but none for war, as we do.

Hm. But words are not all there is to our thinking. "The limits of one's language are the limits of one's world" says that *all* there is there for us is what is in language.

But how on earth could it ever happen then, that new words are made, new things are made?!

Synchronically, Wittgenstein's statement is true, but diachronically, it is a gimp, forgetting evolution.

Language changes over time. "The limits of one's language are the limits of one's world" applies, sure -- but this does not explain *why* change happens -- and change *does* happen!

Already from this I gather that there is *more* to human thinking than language.

What is basic is syntax, and syntax comes from the logical relations we perceive as necessary to be able to orientate ourselves succesfully.
But what is put into these syntactic patterns can be more than what immediate empirical experience allows -- this is because those syntactic patterns are so basic that almost anything can be put into them.

Blindman :

“ nothing//nothing=nothing ”

This is not true. It could also equal infinity. But personally it is a illogical nonsensical statement. Then to n+n = 2n is true n+n = n is false. n-n = 0 true n-n=n is false. This is simple mathematics. The concept of zero works well but the concept of nothing is undefined and abstract.
------------------------------------------------------------------
leave true and false aside, when nothing comes into equation there's no
true,false or ass
i rewrite the formula as true
" // = " does it make sense
and your logic as
" 0 + 0 =20 or 00-illogical nonsensical
nothing=0 thus 0=no-unit thus 0+0=0
and equally
nothing=no-thing thus nothing + nothing =nothing
makes no sense huh?
well this does through " + = "doesnt it?

You're overcomplicating the matter...


It's simple...

Like the song says:

One White Duck/ 010 = Nothing At All

;)

or is it [one white duck /2 = one dead duck]....ha

hahahahaha
hahahahaha
hahahahaha

hahahahaha
hahahahaha

right and funny!!!
is that a joke? you guys should learn maths
you cant put jokes in maths you'll make a joke of it,and then i'll have to correct you
again,guys guys guys,replace white duck with 1 and nothing with 0 units not words thank you

or if we divide philosophy by mathematics we get language.

Philosophy / Mathematics = Language

hahahahaha
hahahahaha
hahahahaha

hahahahaha
hahahahaha

right and funny!!!
is that a joke? you guys should learn maths
you cant put jokes in maths you'll make a joke of it,and then i'll have to correct you
again,guys guys guys,replace white duck with 1 and nothing with 0 units not words thank you

You don't get it.
Go bugger yourself.

:Dhahahahahahahahahahahaha...!!!!!:D

yes because you say so good jokes

^o^
............^o^

......^o^................^o^

....................^o^........................... ...^o^

...^o^

..............^o^

Quantum Quack:
Obviously the answer if you think about it is the "now" takes no time at all in fact the center of time is absolutely nothing, in that it can not be determined except by default and that default is everything we see and do and the universe in general as it changes through or in time continuuous.
The now only being a default existence because of the future and the past.
[and yet some will argue that the future and the past are also non-existent ....ha]

So the 'Now' doesn't exist. You and I do not exist in the Now but we exist all the same.

A paradox of nothingness and something simultaneously occuring.

In a way reality only exists by it's efffect and not it's substance, in that in substance it is naught but is experienced by it's effect [it's memeory of] the event horizon that is the "Now" only exists by the memory of it and not it's direct experience.

You're only speaking as any species tangled up in the concept of time would.
Human being.
"Now" only exists to a species adamant for it.

Existence.
Analyze it when your language says it.
Existence- first of all you have it.
Now, in order for that be, you feel there is some need for a field of awareness to have it in.
Next, you feel that you cannot have it unless there is a feeling of something going on- which requires time.
Therefore, for you, existence is temporal and can only exits by it effect or event-ness.
For you, existence must mean a knowing of past, present, or future- all virulents of time.

The base concepts of math, accumulation and depletion, in the natural world all exist without you being there to perceive it.
But you can’t even contemplate it, as doing so destroys it.

Rosa:
This is because we are deriving our logic from language. We are forgetting actual empirical reality.
For some (stupid?) reason, we aren't thinking that logic comes from the way we perceive the world in space and time: If I put my watch in a box, and the box in the drawer, the watch will be in the drawer. If A is B, and B is C, then A is C. There really is no need for language to make this structure we can simplify using Venn's diagrams.

This is exactly why I say that, sadly, the only medium for philosophy is language.

Logic on its own loses chunks of meaning in the translation- I feel for example that no one understands exactly what Kant meant.

Language changes over time. "The limits of one's language are the limits of one's world" applies, sure -- but this does not explain *why* change happens -- and change *does* happen!

Already from this I gather that there is *more* to human thinking than language.

What is basic is syntax, and syntax comes from the logical relations we perceive as necessary to be able to orientate ourselves succesfully.
But what is put into these syntactic patterns can be more than what immediate empirical experience allows -- this is because those syntactic patterns are so basic that almost anything can be put into them.
Now, spoken language has intuitive qualifiers that written language lacks..
When speaking you're not only speaking but suggesting, demanding, and denying with both tone and body language.

But written language, the only medium where logic can present itself fully to another thinking mind, leaves much to be desired in the way of understanding.
Things slip through (as a Catholic would describe sex with ‘filthy’ words that betray his finding it filthy)
I don’t think we only think with language so we agree here to an extent- there are objects and relations between objects in the form of events that wizz by in milliseconds before the mind can even think to verbalize it internally.

Its this wizzing that I feel, if wholly communicated to another, can truly solve most of philosophy's problems which are, basically, linguistic.

Cyperium:


Explaining the meaning of overmuch is overmuch.

Good?I didn't see this before! Yes, that's good!

(sorry I brought this old thread back up again...)

...it would be rude not to answer Quantum Quack too:
Quantum Quack:

But being absolutely certain of this absolute is absolutely dependent on an absolute idea of nothing being absolutely tied to absolutely everything.
Which means you can be either absolutely right.
Or absolutely wrong.

Unless your absolute conjectures were made objectively- impossible when dealing with Nothing.ok.