Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Nothing exists

sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 11:32:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here I will argue for the strong nihilist position that nothing exists. The statement 'nothing exists' could be interpreted in multiple ways. The first would be the self-contradictory positive position that an actual entity called 'nothing' exists. The second would be simply a negation of the existence of substance. In this case I will separate the two for clarity by referring to the first (a substantive lack of substance,) as 'emptiness', while for the latter (a lack of substance / objects) I use the word 'nothingness' ('no-thing-ness'). 'Exists' should be synonymous with 'is in reality'. The statement 'nothing exists' could also be stated as 'reality has no substance' or 'reality has no objects'. 'Nothing' does not here mean 'that which is not real', which would then mean that 'nothing exists' would translate to 'there is no reality in reality'. Instead, nothingness here refers to a lack of objects or substance.

It is a well known principle that if a word or statement applies in all given cases, it is meaningless. Defining something means to set it in opposition, and to posit some statement as valid for a given context, is equally to posit a separate context for which that statement is invalid. This means, for example, that implicit within the positive statement "This apple is green," is the negative statement, "Not-green-ness exists in the universe". A statement of the existence of X in reality is also implicitly a statement of the existence of not-X in reality. Hence, the statement that substance exists implicitly states that non-substance (emptiness) also exists.

Because the lack of substance is a purely negative conception, anyone who explicitly or implicitly describes it as a substantive entity is contradicting themselves. Akin to a square circle, not only can emptiness not exist in reality; it cannot even exist in our imagination. The only way it comes about is by being 'pointed-toward' through a semantic mistake of communication. We can therefore rule out its being possible in any sense at all a priori.

When it is stated that objects exist independent of subjectivity (for instance the statement that 'A is A' applies in 'objective reality',) this implies that the object is independent of its surroundings. If something is finite, it must be independent in its totality, so cannot be connected to something else which exists. Therefore, to posit the existence of an object necessitates a moat of emptiness surrounding it. If an object is not independent, and is totally connected to its surroundings, then the line by which we define it is an arbitrary one, so the term 'objects' applies only to concepts and the statement that objects exist in reality is false. To make reality itself a contained object is also to surround it with emptiness.

While concepts can overlap or contradict each other, it would be impossible for overlaps or contradictions to take place in reality. When we talk about one thing in reality being 'limited by' another, we are placing a wall of emptiness between the two. This is somewhat obscured and difficult to comprehend because of the fact that words are necessarily limited by being always defined. A limit, however, can only apply to a concept. When we define a concept, we are creating an opposition between what is inside the concept and what is outside it. What is inside the concept gains meaning by being compared to what is outside it, and is considered 'limited' because an intention is imposed. Outside of consciousness, however, no such comparison takes place, and so that sense of intention disappears, and limitation does not apply. Without this limitation, an object is no different from its surroundings (everything it isn't,) and substance finds no expression because it isn't opposed to anything.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 5:50:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 11:32:44 AM, sdavio wrote:
Here I will argue for the strong nihilist position that nothing exists.
Good luck.

The statement 'nothing exists' could be interpreted in multiple ways. The first would be the self-contradictory positive position that an actual entity called 'nothing' exists.
Sure, because that's what is meant by "exist." There is the property of "existence" and then there is the "thing" that possesses that property; ergo, if "nothing" does not posses the quality/property of existence, then nothingness does not exist. Consequently, this position equates to the "exist/not-exist" contradiction.

The second would be simply a negation of the existence of substance.
1) I don't see the difference.

2) Can you give me examples of real things that exist that are not substance? I will need to empirically verify these things.

3) You are also claiming here that "nothingness" possesses the property of existence and this is anathema to the definition of nothingness. Consequently, this too is a contradiction in the same fashion: exist/not-exist.

In this case I will separate the two for clarity by referring to the first (a substantive lack of substance,) as 'emptiness', while for the latter (a lack of substance / objects) I use the word 'nothingness' ('no-thing-ness'). 'Exists' should be synonymous with 'is in reality'.
I have no problem with "exists = 'is in reality' " and as such, (1) "emptiness" would still be a contradiction in the form of substance/non-substance and (2) "nothingness" would still be a contradiction in the form of real/not-real.

The statement 'nothing exists' could also be stated as 'reality has no substance' or 'reality has no objects'.
Which is a meaningless and incoherent thing; a contradiction in the form unreal-real.
Ask yourself:
(1) What is it exactly that is performing the action of being real?
(2) Where is the reality taking place?

'Nothing' does not here mean 'that which is not real', which would then mean that 'nothing exists' would translate to 'there is no reality in reality'.
It absolutely does.

Instead, nothingness here refers to a lack of objects or substance.
A lack of ALL objects or ALL substance IS a lack of reality; ergo, not real. If it were a lack of SPECIFIC objects to which there are others in its place, then it could be a coherent concept and real because there would be OTHER objects doing the existing.

It is a well known principle that if a word or statement applies in all given cases, it is meaningless.
Depends what you mean by "all given cases." Reality is always real in all given cases; unless it's an unreal case of course but then that wouldn't be a possibility. Are you then saying that reality is meaningless?

Defining something means to set it in opposition, and to posit some statement as valid for a given context, is equally to posit a separate context for which that statement is invalid. This means, for example, that implicit within the positive statement "This apple is green," is the negative statement, "Not-green-ness exists in the universe".
Precisely. This is because something will ALWAYS take the place of something else in the Universe. So, because you are negating only a portion of existence (greenness) and that negation is ALWAYS replaced by another portion of existence (non-greenness.) That (color) which is not-green is ALWAYS another color (counting black and white as colors as well.) What you cannot do is negate ALL of existence and arrive at a meaningful or coherent definition.

A statement of the existence of X in reality is also implicitly a statement of the existence of not-X in reality.
1) You are being redundant here. You said that "exists = is in reality" and now you are saying "is in reality is in reality" by stating "existence of X in reality."

2) Again, this is true so long as not-X refers to some other thing that has taken the place of X.

Hence, the statement that substance exists implicitly states that non-substance (emptiness) also exists.
Only of non-substance can take the place of substance; which would make it substance and thus you are in contradiction.

Because the lack of substance is a purely negative conception, anyone who explicitly or implicitly describes it as a substantive entity is contradicting themselves.
You still have not shown that a "lack of ALL substance" exists.

Akin to a square circle, not only can emptiness not exist in reality; it cannot even exist in our imagination.
I agree, but it does not follow from your line of reasoning.

The only way it comes about is by being 'pointed-toward' through a semantic mistake of communication. We can therefore rule out its being possible in any sense at all a priori.
I agree, but it does not follow from your line of reasoning. It can only be accepted as an axiom if one were so inclined to do so.

When it is stated that objects exist independent of subjectivity (for instance the statement that 'A is A' applies in 'objective reality',) this implies that the object is independent of its surroundings.
No, it implies that it is independent of a mind.

If something is finite, it must be independent in its totality, so cannot be connected to something else which exists.
Non sequitur. It's the other way around: it's totally dependent on everything else because all things are connected.

Therefore, to posit the existence of an object necessitates a moat of emptiness surrounding it.
Non sequitur. X necessitates a moat of not-X surrounding it.

If an object is not independent, and is totally connected to its surroundings, then the line by which we define it is an arbitrary one, so the term 'objects' applies only to concepts and the statement that objects exist in reality is false.
It is arbitrary, that's why we develop axioms so that they cease to be arbitrary; otherwise, there could be no knowledge.

To make reality itself a contained object is also to surround it with emptiness.
True, that's why reality itself is not contained.

While concepts can overlap or contradict each other, it would be impossible for overlaps or contradictions to take place in reality.
Contradictions yes, overlaps no. Something can be 2 things at once so long as those 2 things are not mutually exclusive/contradictory.

When we talk about one thing in reality being 'limited by' another, we are placing a wall of emptiness between the two.
Non sequitur.

This is somewhat obscured and difficult to comprehend because of the fact that words are necessarily limited by being always defined.
Not all "words" are defined and not all definitions are coherent. What's a "squircle"? It's a "square-circle." So I defined this word but the definition is not coherent and thus meaningless and thus not much of a definition. So is it really defined? I suppose there are 2 definitions of the word "definition" and we are equivocating between the 2.

A limit, however, can only apply to a concept. When we define a concept, we are creating an opposition between what is inside the concept and what is outside it.
False distinction. By your own reasoning: if concept exists then so does non-concept.

What is inside the concept gains meaning by being compared to what is outside it, and is considered 'limited' because an intention is imposed.
No idea what this string of words even means.

Outside of consciousness, however, no such comparison takes place, and so that sense of intention disappears, and limitation does not apply. Without this limitation, an object is no different from its surroundings (everything it isn't,) and substance finds no expression because it isn't opposed to anything.
Yet objects are different from their surroundings and substance is expressed because there is no other alternative but substance. Also, substance is opposed by other substance all the time.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 1:01:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 5:50:38 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/29/2014 11:32:44 AM, sdavio wrote:
Here I will argue for the strong nihilist position that nothing exists.
Good luck.

The statement 'nothing exists' could be interpreted in multiple ways. The first would be the self-contradictory positive position that an actual entity called 'nothing' exists.
Sure, because that's what is meant by "exist." There is the property of "existence" and then there is the "thing" that possesses that property; ergo, if "nothing" does not posses the quality/property of existence, then nothingness does not exist. Consequently, this position equates to the "exist/not-exist" contradiction.

The second would be simply a negation of the existence of substance.
1) I don't see the difference.

Emptiness would mean that an entity of 'without' fits the category 'exists'. Nothingness means that there are no things (no-thing-ness) which fit the category of 'existing'. Emptiness is positive with regard to some entity, while nothingness is negative.

2) Can you give me examples of real things that exist that are not substance? I will need to empirically verify these things.

There are no 'real things'.

3) You are also claiming here that "nothingness" possesses the property of existence and this is anathema to the definition of nothingness. Consequently, this too is a contradiction in the same fashion: exist/not-exist.

No, I am simply negating the existence of any substance. Nothingness = no substance / objects; 'nothing exists' = 'no substance or objects exist'.

In this case I will separate the two for clarity by referring to the first (a substantive lack of substance,) as 'emptiness', while for the latter (a lack of substance / objects) I use the word 'nothingness' ('no-thing-ness'). 'Exists' should be synonymous with 'is in reality'.
I have no problem with "exists = 'is in reality' " and as such, (1) "emptiness" would still be a contradiction in the form of substance/non-substance and (2) "nothingness" would still be a contradiction in the form of real/not-real.

(2) is not a self-contradiction, it simply denies the existence of substance. Something can contradict what is true but not be a self-contradiction (not be inherently self-defeating), so to show the latter you must show that the statement "no substance exists" implies the existence of substance deductively.

The statement 'nothing exists' could also be stated as 'reality has no substance' or 'reality has no objects'.
Which is a meaningless and incoherent thing; a contradiction in the form unreal-real.
Ask yourself:
(1) What is it exactly that is performing the action of being real?

That action ('being real' as a verb) doesn't take place.

(2) Where is the reality taking place?

There is no location at which reality 'takes place'.

'Nothing' does not here mean 'that which is not real', which would then mean that 'nothing exists' would translate to 'there is no reality in reality'.
It absolutely does.

No, it describes a state of a certain criteria not being met. For example, if someone is not wearing a shirt, we might describe them as 'shirtless'. This does not entail a positive entity called 'no shirt' actually existing.

Instead, nothingness here refers to a lack of objects or substance.
A lack of ALL objects or ALL substance IS a lack of reality; ergo, not real. If it were a lack of SPECIFIC objects to which there are others in its place, then it could be a coherent concept and real because there would be OTHER objects doing the existing.

You're assuming that reality necessarily consists only and entirely of objects. My argument here should be agnostic as regards the actual existence of reality, but show that IF reality exists, there certainly couldn't be objects in it, since that would entail a logical contradiction (emptiness).

It is a well known principle that if a word or statement applies in all given cases, it is meaningless.
Depends what you mean by "all given cases." Reality is always real in all given cases; unless it's an unreal case of course but then that wouldn't be a possibility. Are you then saying that reality is meaningless?

For X to be a sensible term, not-X must be able to exist without entailing an internal contradiction. Certain statements could be regarded as 'untrue', so truth is not a meaningless term in regard to a property of statements; but is meaningless as a metaphysical state. Substance is meaningless because its contradiction - emptiness - is impossible.

Defining something means to set it in opposition, and to posit some statement as valid for a given context, is equally to posit a separate context for which that statement is invalid. This means, for example, that implicit within the positive statement "This apple is green," is the negative statement, "Not-green-ness exists in the universe".
Precisely. This is because something will ALWAYS take the place of something else in the Universe. So, because you are negating only a portion of existence (greenness) and that negation is ALWAYS replaced by another portion of existence (non-greenness.) That (color) which is not-green is ALWAYS another color (counting black and white as colors as well.) What you cannot do is negate ALL of existence and arrive at a meaningful or coherent definition.

If with anything you point to, the descriptor 'has substance' gives unilaterally the feedback 'yes' to its criteria, then the situation is functionally identical to if it had no criteria at all; ie, it's an undefined term.

A statement of the existence of X in reality is also implicitly a statement of the existence of not-X in reality.
1) You are being redundant here. You said that "exists = is in reality" and now you are saying "is in reality is in reality" by stating "existence of X in reality."

I guess it is redundant to say "existence of X in reality" instead of just "existence of X", true. Although that doesn't have bearing on the content only the form in that I could have been more concise.

2) Again, this is true so long as not-X refers to some other thing that has taken the place of X.

So you agree that:

The existence of X also entails the existence of not-X as "another thing that has taken the place of X".

Therefore:

The existence of substance also entails the existence of non-substance (emptiness) which can take the place of substance.

Which is impossible, meaning substance is an inherently self-defeating concept.

Hence, the statement that substance exists implicitly states that non-substance (emptiness) also exists.
Only of non-substance can take the place of substance; which would make it substance and thus you are in contradiction.

No, I am pointing out that that contradiction is what positing the existence of substance leads to via the distinction you agreed to above that the existence of X entails the existence of "some other thing" which is not X. You are the one who's stating that substance exists, not me.

Because the lack of substance is a purely negative conception, anyone who explicitly or implicitly describes it as a substantive entity is contradicting themselves.
You still have not shown that a "lack of ALL substance" exists.

Argument that reality must lack all substance:

1. The existence of X entails the existence of "some other thing" not-X. [Agreed to by yourself above.]
2. The existence of substance entails the existence of non-substance (emptiness).
3. Emptiness is a contradiction.
4. The existence of substance entails a contradiction.
5. The existence of substance is impossible.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 1:08:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
(Continued)

The only way it comes about is by being 'pointed-toward' through a semantic mistake of communication. We can therefore rule out its being possible in any sense at all a priori.
I agree, but it does not follow from your line of reasoning. It can only be accepted as an axiom if one were so inclined to do so.

It follows from the fact that it's a contradiction.

When it is stated that objects exist independent of subjectivity (for instance the statement that 'A is A' applies in 'objective reality',) this implies that the object is independent of its surroundings.
No, it implies that it is independent of a mind.

If there is an object independent of a subjective conceptualising faculty, the definition of the object must exist in reality and not be created by a mind. If it is connected to something outside itself then it is not in itself an object.

If something is finite, it must be independent in its totality, so cannot be connected to something else which exists.
Non sequitur. It's the other way around: it's totally dependent on everything else because all things are connected.

If there is an "all things" and they are internally connected then defining lines within that are subjectively synthesised and not intrinsic, therefore there are no internal objects; and also you are making "all" as one thing which must be surrounded by emptiness to gain its definition.

Therefore, to posit the existence of an object necessitates a moat of emptiness surrounding it.
Non sequitur. X necessitates a moat of not-X surrounding it.

If something is connected to its surroundings then the only way it itself is an object is through a concept by a mind differentiating it from them.

If an object is not independent, and is totally connected to its surroundings, then the line by which we define it is an arbitrary one, so the term 'objects' applies only to concepts and the statement that objects exist in reality is false.
It is arbitrary, that's why we develop axioms so that they cease to be arbitrary; otherwise, there could be no knowledge.

The axioms guide us in consistently differentiating but that doesn't mean objects are intrinsically differentiated to provide potential for that; which would necessitate emptiness.

To make reality itself a contained object is also to surround it with emptiness.
True, that's why reality itself is not contained.

"All things are connected" - you.

A limit, however, can only apply to a concept. When we define a concept, we are creating an opposition between what is inside the concept and what is outside it.
False distinction. By your own reasoning: if concept exists then so does non-concept.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I don't understand how that disproves what I said.

What is inside the concept gains meaning by being compared to what is outside it, and is considered 'limited' because an intention is imposed.
No idea what this string of words even means.

Things are always defined with intention. Basically, if I point at something and name it I am doing so with an intention to differentiate it. Without intention, there is no differentiation and vice-versa. Then, there is no object 'limited to itself'. Which is basically to say that there are no defined things.

Outside of consciousness, however, no such comparison takes place, and so that sense of intention disappears, and limitation does not apply. Without this limitation, an object is no different from its surroundings (everything it isn't,) and substance finds no expression because it isn't opposed to anything.
Yet objects are different from their surroundings and substance is expressed because there is no other alternative but substance. Also, substance is opposed by other substance all the time.

Substance is an incoherent concept so the alternative is 'nothingness' ie a rejection of the concept.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 12:11:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dayum.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 4:15:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 12:25:30 PM, AngelofDeath wrote:
If u care so much, why not just actually debate it?

What's wrong with discussing on the forums?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 5:21:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 11:32:44 AM, sdavio wrote:

snip-:

You seem to be ignoring the meaning of consciousness just to make your point.
I think this is a mistake. If consciousness is the only thing that gives things the power to be unique, then consciousness must be very important indeed!

You see, you do not deny that consciousness actually has the power to separate objects. Instead, you seem to be denying that consciousness has any importance in reality.

You say that if that sense of intention (which is brought about by consciousness) disappears, then limitation does not apply, and you are probably correct.
However, in saying so, you admit that consciousness has the power to separate objects.

So I say to you, you can't be a nihilist without admitting both the existence and the power of being. Whatever it is you oppose must have great enough power for you to oppose it in the first place. You admit this with your every statement here.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 5:22:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 4:15:05 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/30/2014 12:25:30 PM, AngelofDeath wrote:
If u care so much, why not just actually debate it?

What's wrong with discussing on the forums?

Nothing. I am with you on this.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
AngelofDeath
Posts: 2,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:02:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 4:15:05 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/30/2014 12:25:30 PM, AngelofDeath wrote:
If u care so much, why not just actually debate it?

What's wrong with discussing on the forums?

Nothing, just why not debate if it's a debate site?
I may or may not be a cat
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:56:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 5:21:00 AM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
At 4/29/2014 11:32:44 AM, sdavio wrote:

snip-:

You seem to be ignoring the meaning of consciousness just to make your point.
I think this is a mistake. If consciousness is the only thing that gives things the power to be unique, then consciousness must be very important indeed!

You see, you do not deny that consciousness actually has the power to separate objects. Instead, you seem to be denying that consciousness has any importance in reality.

You say that if that sense of intention (which is brought about by consciousness) disappears, then limitation does not apply, and you are probably correct.
However, in saying so, you admit that consciousness has the power to separate objects.

So I say to you, you can't be a nihilist without admitting both the existence and the power of being. Whatever it is you oppose must have great enough power for you to oppose it in the first place. You admit this with your every statement here.


You assume that consciousness is 'something'. For it to be something, you must contrast it against emptiness, which is a self-destructing concept. Whether or not we believe consciousness does these things, we cannot go so far as to say that the agent of these actions is 'something' without contradicting ourselves.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 2:36:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 11:32:44 AM, sdavio wrote:
It is a well known principle that if a word or statement applies in all given cases, it is meaningless.

Logical tautologies apply in all cases by definition. If they were meaningless, then all statements would either be meaningless or based on assumptions. If a statement is meaningless, then it can be neither "true" nor "untrue", because it says nothing. But logical tautologies cannot be neither true nor untrue, because they are true by definition.

A statement of the existence of X in reality is also implicitly a statement of the existence of not-X in reality. Hence, the statement that substance exists implicitly states that non-substance (emptiness) also exists.

In your usage, "substance" and "real" are used synonymously. This is evident when you conclude that non-substance implies a total lack as opposed to just the existence of something that is not substance. You are effectively claiming that "reality is not real because in order for reality to be real, non-reality must also be real". You merely qualify your statement with "X in reality", but I don't see any fundamental difference. Reality is all and only that which is real i.e. reality is not non-reality.

Because the lack of substance is a purely negative conception, anyone who explicitly or implicitly describes it as a substantive entity is contradicting themselves. Akin to a square circle, not only can emptiness not exist in reality; it cannot even exist in our imagination. The only way it comes about is by being 'pointed-toward' through a semantic mistake of communication. We can therefore rule out its being possible in any sense at all a priori.

The connection to your argument should be obvious -- paradox corresponds to "emptiness" (non-existence) and logic corresponds to "substance" (existence)... indeed, logic and existence are tautologically related:

"That which has no complement is indistinguishable from its complement and therefore contains zero information. But if logic has no informational value, then neither does logical consistency. And if logical consistency has no informational value, then consistent and inconsistent theories are of equal validity."

"UBT is not merely paradoxical, but "meta-paradoxical" by definition. What does this mean? Paradox is what results from self-referentially applying the negation functor of logic to logic itself within logical bounds, and avoiding paradox is precisely what gives logic its discernability and utility. But if avoiding paradox gives logic its utility, then logic needs paradox in order to have utility (where the utility of logic tautologically resides in its power to exclude the negation of logic, i.e. paradox). This means that both logic and paradox exist in a mutually supportive capacity. But if so, then there is necessarily a medium of existence - a kind of "existential protomedium" or ontological groundstate - accommodating both logic and paradox. UBT is simply the name given to this protomedium, and it is why the CTMU refers to reality as a "self-resolving paradox. Although UBT bears a disquieting resemblance to paradox, far better UBT than logic itself. If there were no medium in which logic could be negated - if there were no UBT - then logic would itself be indistinguishable from paradox, and in that case it and our world would fall apart."

Your reasoning would have us believe that logic is false.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 4:23:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 2:36:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/29/2014 11:32:44 AM, sdavio wrote:
It is a well known principle that if a word or statement applies in all given cases, it is meaningless.

Logical tautologies apply in all cases by definition. If they were meaningless, then all statements would either be meaningless or based on assumptions. If a statement is meaningless, then it can be neither "true" nor "untrue", because it says nothing. But logical tautologies cannot be neither true nor untrue, because they are true by definition.

A tautology does not apply in all cases in the context of language, (the statement "A is not A" returns a 'no' for example) which in my view is its proper application, (as a rule for communication) but I agree that as a statement about 'reality' it is meaningless. And yes, all statements are either meaningless or based on assumptions.

A statement of the existence of X in reality is also implicitly a statement of the existence of not-X in reality. Hence, the statement that substance exists implicitly states that non-substance (emptiness) also exists.

In your usage, "substance" and "real" are used synonymously. This is evident when you conclude that non-substance implies a total lack as opposed to just the existence of something that is not substance.

I don't know where I said that, and I don't understand what it means.

You are effectively claiming that "reality is not real because in order for reality to be real, non-reality must also be real". You merely qualify your statement with "X in reality", but I don't see any fundamental difference. Reality is all and only that which is real i.e. reality is not non-reality.

If by reality we mean it as a 'substantive' metaphysical state then my argument does preclude it. I use the word 'substance' (or 'objects') because it seems to make my argument more clear. 'Reality' has more connotations / possible meanings.

Because the lack of substance is a purely negative conception, anyone who explicitly or implicitly describes it as a substantive entity is contradicting themselves. Akin to a square circle, not only can emptiness not exist in reality; it cannot even exist in our imagination. The only way it comes about is by being 'pointed-toward' through a semantic mistake of communication. We can therefore rule out its being possible in any sense at all a priori.

The connection to your argument should be obvious -- paradox corresponds to "emptiness" (non-existence) and logic corresponds to "substance" (existence)... indeed, logic and existence are tautologically related:

"That which has no complement is indistinguishable from its complement and therefore contains zero information. But if logic has no informational value, then neither does logical consistency. And if logical consistency has no informational value, then consistent and inconsistent theories are of equal validity."

It's an issue of communication rather than truth. Inconsistent theories are not necessarily any less true than consistent ones (a consistent theory could still be completely false) but consistency aids communication.

"UBT is not merely paradoxical, but "meta-paradoxical" by definition. What does this mean? Paradox is what results from self-referentially applying the negation functor of logic to logic itself within logical bounds,

Logic presupposes separate independent objects for its operations to apply to. If objects are separate they are separated by emptiness. This is in my view the foundational mistake here that all the others are flowing from; building from the idea that there's aspect is leaning on a contradiction by necessitating emptiness.

and avoiding paradox is precisely what gives logic its discernability and utility. But if avoiding paradox gives logic its utility, then logic needs paradox in order to have utility (where the utility of logic tautologically resides in its power to exclude the negation of logic, i.e. paradox). This means that both logic and paradox exist in a mutually supportive capacity. But if so, then there is necessarily a medium of existence - a kind of "existential protomedium" or ontological groundstate - accommodating both logic and paradox. UBT is simply the name given to this protomedium, and it is why the CTMU refers to reality as a "self-resolving paradox. Although UBT bears a disquieting resemblance to paradox, far better UBT than logic itself. If there were no medium in which logic could be negated - if there were no UBT - then logic would itself be indistinguishable from paradox, and in that case it and our world would fall apart."

Your reasoning would have us believe that logic is false.

Logic is a normative 'demand' about how to communicate meaningfully, but as a statement about a metaphysical state it is either meaningless or false. The above quote seems to acknowledge that it presupposes a paradox, but I don't understand what solution it gives. If a contradiction deductively follows from a statement, then the statement is nonsense. Logic metaphysically existing begets a contradiction, and is therefore nonsense.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 4:36:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There's nothing 'positive' nor 'negative' about reality, since it is the standard, the zero. To call it otherwise presupposes another zero which can only be pointed toward but never seen, which seems to be a hangup from religion.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 6:01:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 1:01:52 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:50:38 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Sure, because that's what is meant by "exist." There is the property of "existence" and then there is the "thing" that possesses that property; ergo, if "nothing" does not posses the quality/property of existence, then nothingness does not exist. Consequently, this position equates to the "exist/not-exist" contradiction.
The second would be simply a negation of the existence of substance.
1) I don't see the difference.
Emptiness would mean that an entity of 'without' fits the category 'exists'.
That's a contradiction in the form exist/not-exist. What exactly is it that's doing the existing?

Nothingness means that there are no things (no-thing-ness) which fit the category of 'existing'.
We already have a name for that: non-existence; ergo, nothingness is non-existence, nothingness does not exist.

Emptiness is positive with regard to some entity, while nothingness is negative.
1) They are both incoherent concepts; ergo, there's no difference.

2) You neglected to mention that nothingness is negative with respect to all entities.

2) Can you give me examples of real things that exist that are not substance? I will need to empirically verify these things.
There are no 'real things'.
"There are no real things" is not a coherent concept and does not exist by definition. Again, what is it that's doing the existing? A square-circle is "something" that is a "there are no real things".

3) You are also claiming here that "nothingness" possesses the property of existence and this is anathema to the definition of nothingness. Consequently, this too is a contradiction in the same fashion: exist/not-exist.
No, I am simply negating the existence of any substance.
That cannot be done without arriving at incoherence or contradiction. Existence cannot be negated. Your use of substance is redundant.

Nothingness = no substance / objects; 'nothing exists' = 'no substance or objects exist'.
Which is a contradiction; what is it exactly that's doing the existing? If asked this questions many times (3 or 4 times up until now) and you still have not answered it.

In this case I will separate the two for clarity by referring to the first (a substantive lack of substance,) as 'emptiness', while for the latter (a lack of substance / objects) I use the word 'nothingness' ('no-thing-ness'). 'Exists' should be synonymous with 'is in reality'.
I have no problem with "exists = 'is in reality' " and as such, (1) "emptiness" would still be a contradiction in the form of substance/non-substance and (2) "nothingness" would still be a contradiction in the form of real/not-real.
(2) is not a self-contradiction, it simply denies the existence of substance.
Which is a contradiction. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what exactly is doing the existing in nothingness...

Something can contradict what is true but not be a self-contradiction (not be inherently self-defeating), so to show the latter you must show that the statement "no substance exists" implies the existence of substance deductively.
I have shown that this is a contradiction in the form exist/not-exist and you have yet to demonstrate what is doing the existing in nothingness...

The statement 'nothing exists' could also be stated as 'reality has no substance' or 'reality has no objects'.
Which is a meaningless and incoherent thing; a contradiction in the form unreal-real.
Ask yourself:
(1) What is it exactly that is performing the action of being real?
That action ('being real' as a verb) doesn't take place.
And thus "nothingness" is unreal which means that it is not a possibility, incoherent, meaningless, contradiction, fantasy, etc. etc. etc.

(2) Where is the reality taking place?
There is no location at which reality 'takes place'.
Sure, the same place that square-circles happen: no where. See above.

'Nothing' does not here mean 'that which is not real', which would then mean that 'nothing exists' would translate to 'there is no reality in reality'.
It absolutely does.
No, it describes a state of a certain criteria not being met.
Yes, a criteria that cannot not be met without arriving at an absurdity.

For example, if someone is not wearing a shirt, we might describe them as 'shirtless'. This does not entail a positive entity called 'no shirt' actually existing.
Again, here you are negating ONLY a shirt which makes shirtless, everything else in the Universe that is not a shirt. This is very different from negating all of existence, when you do that the only thing left are things that do not exist: fantasies, contradictions, meaninglessness, etc. For example, a car is shirtless, happiness is shirtless, a person wearing a sweater or coat (without a shirt of course) is shirtless, an apple, etc.

A lack of ALL objects or ALL substance IS a lack of reality; ergo, not real. If it were a lack of SPECIFIC objects to which there are others in its place, then it could be a coherent concept and real because there would be OTHER objects doing the existing.
You're assuming that reality necessarily consists only and entirely of objects.
As opposed to what, composed of non-objects? That's absurd.

My argument here should be agnostic as regards the actual existence of reality, but show that IF reality exists, there certainly couldn't be objects in it, since that would entail a logical contradiction (emptiness).
Your argument is built upon non sequiturs and contradictions as I have shown. You basically dance between objective-subjective as it suits you and then denounce them when it suits you.

It is a well known principle that if a word or statement applies in all given cases, it is meaningless.
Depends what you mean by "all given cases." Reality is always real in all given cases; unless it's an unreal case of course but then that wouldn't be a possibility. Are you then saying that reality is meaningless?
For X to be a sensible term, not-X must be able to exist without entailing an internal contradiction.
So you are saying: "For REALITY to be a sensible term, UNREALITY must be able to exist without entailing an internal contradiction." Thus you are quite mistaken.

Certain statements could be regarded as 'untrue', so truth is not a meaningless term in regard to a property of statements; but is meaningless as a metaphysical state. Substance is meaningless because its contradiction - emptiness - is impossible.
See above.

Precisely. This is because something will ALWAYS take the place of something else in the Universe. So, because you are negating only a portion of existence (greenness) and that negation is ALWAYS replaced by another portion of existence (non-greenness.) That (color) which is not-green is ALWAYS another color (counting black and white as colors as well.) What you cannot do is negate ALL of existence and arrive at a meaningful or coherent definition.
If with anything you point to, the descriptor 'has substance' gives unilaterally the feedback 'yes' to its criteria, then the situation is functionally identical to if it had no criteria at all; ie, it's an undefined term.
That does not address my points above; they still stand. I would have addressed it regardless, but it is obtuse and unclear. If you want me to address it, rephrase it more clearly and address my points as well.

(Continued...)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 6:04:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
(...Continued...)

A statement of the existence of X in reality is also implicitly a statement of the existence of not-X in reality.
1) You are being redundant here. You said that "exists = is in reality" and now you are saying "is in reality is in reality" by stating "existence of X in reality."
I guess it is redundant to say "existence of X in reality" instead of just "existence of X", true. Although that doesn't have bearing on the content only the form in that I could have been more concise.
True, but it is an extra layer of obfuscation that is not needed...nor desired.

2) Again, this is true so long as not-X refers to some other thing that has taken the place of X.
So you agree that:

The existence of X also entails the existence of not-X as "another thing that has taken the place of X".

Therefore:

The existence of substance also entails the existence of non-substance (emptiness) which can take the place of substance.
No because:

1) You have failed to show that there is such a thing as non-substance.

2) You've only demonstrated in fact that there is no functional difference between substance and non-substance.

3) Again, this is a contradiction in the form substance/non-substance.

Which is impossible, meaning substance is an inherently self-defeating concept.
No, it means that non-substance is an inherently self-defeating concept.

Hence, the statement that substance exists implicitly states that non-substance (emptiness) also exists.
Only of non-substance can take the place of substance; which would make it substance and thus you are in contradiction.
No, I am pointing out that that contradiction is what positing the existence of substance leads to via the distinction you agreed to above that the existence of X entails the existence of "some other thing" which is not X. You are the one who's stating that substance exists, not me.
But I never agreed to it. Matter of fact, I showed how it was false in several ways. I'll explain again what I said: "some thing takes the place of some thing else" and so there are 2 things that exist. This is very clearly different from what you said.

You still have not shown that a "lack of ALL substance" exists.
Argument that reality must lack all substance:

1. The existence of X entails the existence of "some other thing" not-X. [Agreed to by yourself above.]
I never agreed to it; this statement is not ALWAYS true for all cases.

2. The existence of substance entails the existence of non-substance (emptiness).
False.

3. Emptiness is a contradiction.
Emptiness in the form of "nothingness" is a contradiction.

4. The existence of substance entails a contradiction.
Non sequitur.

5. The existence of substance is impossible
Non sequitur.

The only way it comes about is by being 'pointed-toward' through a semantic mistake of communication. We can therefore rule out its being possible in any sense at all a priori.
I agree, but it does not follow from your line of reasoning. It can only be accepted as an axiom if one were so inclined to do so.
It follows from the fact that it's a contradiction.
What's a contradiction is the negation of existence; that's very different from what you are saying here.

When it is stated that objects exist independent of subjectivity (for instance the statement that 'A is A' applies in 'objective reality',) this implies that the object is independent of its surroundings.
No, it implies that it is independent of a mind.
If there is an object independent of a subjective conceptualizing faculty, the definition of the object must exist in reality and not be created by a mind.
Definitions ARE mental conceptions thus they cannot exist without a mind. Nonetheless, I will concede that such a definition can be an objective definition.

If it is connected to something outside itself then it is not in itself an object.
This statement is SUBJECTIVE and depends on your OPINION as to what constitutes an object and what does not. If you have 2 objects and they are connected then you have 2 connected objects; there's nothing inherently absurd about that concept.

If something is finite, it must be independent in its totality, so cannot be connected to something else which exists.
Non sequitur. It's the other way around: it's totally dependent on everything else because all things are connected.
If there is an "all things" and they are internally connected then defining lines within that are subjectively synthesized and not intrinsic, therefore there are no internal objects; and also you are making "all" as one thing which must be surrounded by emptiness to gain its definition.
Does not follow. Again, you vacillate between the objective and subjective view: you need to pick one and stick with it.

There is an "all things" and it's called existence or the Universe. This "collection" is a complete collection that is not lacking and all of it is connected. You don't need to specify internal/external as there is no "external" to this collection; that is, externality with respects to this collection, is a contradiction, absurdity, meaninglessness, etc.

Subjectively defining lines within it is one thing and objectively defining them is another. Regardless, we can take the approach that there are no subdivisions in "the undivided whole" (as David Bohm called it) but all this means is there is 1 not 2 things like you are implying. There is reality all of existence and then that is all, the only thing left is non-existence which simply does not exist. Again, ONE thing not TWO.

Therefore, to posit the existence of an object necessitates a moat of emptiness surrounding it.
Non sequitur. X necessitates a moat of not-X surrounding it.
If something is connected to its surroundings then the only way it itself is an object is through a concept by a mind differentiating it from them.
Or a physical difference like an electron vs a proton; hydrogen vs helium; etc. Regardless, I can accept your subjective interpretation of object and say that yes there is also the undivided whole and nothing else; but that is oneness not twoness.

If an object is not independent, and is totally connected to its surroundings, then the line by which we define it is an arbitrary one, so the term 'objects' applies only to concepts and the statement that objects exist in reality is false.
It is arbitrary, that's why we develop axioms so that they cease to be arbitrary; otherwise, there could be no knowledge.
The axioms guide us in consistently differentiating but that doesn't mean objects are intrinsically differentiated to provide potential for that; which would necessitate emptiness.
Again, it does not necessitate emptiness because it shows that there can be oneness not twoness.

To make reality itself a contained object is also to surround it with emptiness.
True, that's why reality itself is not contained.
"All things are connected" - you.
All things are connected not= contained. Try again.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 6:05:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 1:01:52 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:50:38 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

(...Continued...)

A limit, however, can only apply to a concept. When we define a concept, we are creating an opposition between what is inside the concept and what is outside it.
False distinction. By your own reasoning: if concept exists then so does non-concept.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I don't understand how that disproves what I said.
You agree that "if concept exists then so does non-concept"? That's like agreeing with a square-circle; that's meaningless. Again it is false that "if concept exists then so does non-concept."

What is inside the concept gains meaning by being compared to what is outside it, and is considered 'limited' because an intention is imposed.
No idea what this string of words even means.
Things are always defined with intention.
Obviously.

Basically, if I point at something and name it I am doing so with an intention to differentiate it.
Even if you don't point to anything, there's already a differentiation: you vs not-you.

Without intention, there is no differentiation and vice-versa.
This is a SUBJECTIVE point; realize that.

Then, there is no object 'limited to itself'.
Only if there is no self and if there is no self then NONE of what you say holds meaning.

Which is basically to say that there are no defined things.
Which is basically the same as not saying anything or a square-circle or "as adsfasd fsda sdfas a".

Outside of consciousness, however, no such comparison takes place, and so that sense of intention disappears, and limitation does not apply. Without this limitation, an object is no different from its surroundings (everything it isn't,) and substance finds no expression because it isn't opposed to anything.
Yet objects are different from their surroundings and substance is expressed because there is no other alternative but substance. Also, substance is opposed by other substance all the time.
Substance is an incoherent concept so the alternative is 'nothingness' ie a rejection of the concept.
Yet here we are and you have yet to demonstrate 1) that nothingness is a coherent concept or that 2) substance is incoherent; heck, you didn't even define substance to begin with!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 11:06:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If 'not-X' can only refer to total nonsense, then 'X' can only be an inversion of that nonsense. We can talk about a logical or illogical sentence sensibly, but cannot talk about an 'illogical situation' sensibly, and hence we cannot talk about logical situations in the positive sense either; so the concept 'logic' should be limited to where it applies, which is language.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:45:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 11:06:18 PM, sdavio wrote:
If 'not-X' can only refer to total nonsense, then 'X' can only be an inversion of that nonsense.
And the inversion of nonsense is sense. The trouble is your starting point: while I chose to start at sense or X, you chose to start at nonsense or not-X.

We can talk about a logical or illogical sentence sensibly, but cannot talk about an 'illogical situation' sensibly...
Don't see a distinction.

...and hence we cannot talk about logical situations in the positive sense either; so the concept 'logic' should be limited to where it applies, which is language.
Does not follow.

There's nothing 'positive' nor 'negative' about reality, since it is the standard, the zero.
That's what zero is in this case: the combination of positive and negative. However, DO NOT make the mistake of thinking that this combination produces some incoherent empty void because it is NOT the case. In this case, IF zero IS everything then zero is also GREATER than the positive that it embodies and also GREATER than the negative that it embodies. Clearly much different than that nonsensical conception of nothingness.

To call it otherwise presupposes another zero which can only be pointed toward but never seen, which seems to be a hangup from religion.
That's a non sequitur and I don't see what religion has to do with anything here.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Nebelous
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 3:27:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Would you argue that logic can't be applied to this? Logically everything has a cause, so reality/existence or whatever has to have some sort of cause. This may not be real but there has to be something that is real to cause it. Otherwise this wouldn't exist at all even as an illusion.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 4:34:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 3:27:52 PM, Nebelous wrote:
Would you argue that logic can't be applied to this?
No.

Logically everything has a cause, so reality/existence or whatever has to have some sort of cause.
False premise; logic does not dictate that "everything has a cause." Reality/existence is transcendental and has no cause because logic dictates that the alternative is illogical.

This may not be real but there has to be something that is real to cause it. Otherwise this wouldn't exist at all even as an illusion.
That's right: one cannot argue from unreality.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 7:54:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 8:56:06 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 5/1/2014 5:21:00 AM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
At 4/29/2014 11:32:44 AM, sdavio wrote:

snip-:

You seem to be ignoring the meaning of consciousness just to make your point.
I think this is a mistake. If consciousness is the only thing that gives things the power to be unique, then consciousness must be very important indeed!

You see, you do not deny that consciousness actually has the power to separate objects. Instead, you seem to be denying that consciousness has any importance in reality.

You say that if that sense of intention (which is brought about by consciousness) disappears, then limitation does not apply, and you are probably correct.
However, in saying so, you admit that consciousness has the power to separate objects.

So I say to you, you can't be a nihilist without admitting both the existence and the power of being. Whatever it is you oppose must have great enough power for you to oppose it in the first place. You admit this with your every statement here.


You assume that consciousness is 'something'. For it to be something, you must contrast it against emptiness, which is a self-destructing concept. Whether or not we believe consciousness does these things, we cannot go so far as to say that the agent of these actions is 'something' without contradicting ourselves.

Yes, I assume that consciousness is something, here's why:

I am aware of my own being. As Descartes said, " I think therefore I am." I don't know for sure what exactly I am, but I am something, and I'm aware of it.

I self identify. When self identifying, I say that the rock is not me. Now, I'll admit that it's possible that the confluence of events is what causes my mind to make any choices it makes (though I do not believe it.)
However, it makes no difference whether I am making choices or if the universe is making them for me. In either case some part of the universe considers itself different from the rock. A choice is being made. In my opinion only conscious self awareness can make judgement choices.

And yes, I agree that I must contrast "something" against "nothing," and I say that nothing is indeed the direct opposite of consciousness. It may be self defeating, however it has not defeated itself yet.
I still think.
Furthermore, the fact that it has not defeated itself yet gives me hope to think that consciousness may just be powerful enough to keep a balance with nothing.

As far as the contradicting you mention....... With all due respect....I call bullsht.
Hot and cold are opposites and the contradiction is meaningless. Light and dark are opposites, and again, the contradiction is meaningless.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 9:20:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Of course nothing exists! How could you know where something was if there was no nothing around it?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 1:36:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 9:20:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Of course nothing exists! How could you know where something was if there was no nothing around it?
Non-sequitur: I know where some thing is because there are other things around it.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 10:02:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 6:01:28 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/30/2014 1:01:52 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/29/2014 5:50:38 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
1) I don't see the difference.
Emptiness would mean that an entity of 'without' fits the category 'exists'.
That's a contradiction in the form exist/not-exist. What exactly is it that's doing the existing?

We agree that emptiness is a contradiction.

Nothingness means that there are no things (no-thing-ness) which fit the category of 'existing'.
We already have a name for that: non-existence; ergo, nothingness is non-existence, nothingness does not exist.

No, because nothingness applies specifically to the concept of 'things', which non-existence does not specify what is not existing.

Emptiness is positive with regard to some entity, while nothingness is negative.
1) They are both incoherent concepts; ergo, there's no difference.

I won't be convinced that nothingness is incoherent until I see how 'substance exists' can be deductively derived from 'substance does not exist'.

2) You neglected to mention that nothingness is negative with respect to all entities.

Alright.

2) Can you give me examples of real things that exist that are not substance? I will need to empirically verify these things.
There are no 'real things'.
"There are no real things" is not a coherent concept and does not exist by definition. Again, what is it that's doing the existing? A square-circle is "something" that is a "there are no real things".

I can't make sense of any of the above. And, asking "What objects exist?" in response to me asserting that objects do not exist is begging the question. It's like if I were against gun control and you asked "So why is it that gun control saves so many lives?" It isn't an argument, since the implicit premise of the question is the conclusion you're supposed to be arguing for.

No, I am simply negating the existence of any substance.
That cannot be done without arriving at incoherence or contradiction. Existence cannot be negated. Your use of substance is redundant.

Saying that the existence of substance cannot be negated in response to me negating substance isn't an argument.

Nothingness = no substance / objects; 'nothing exists' = 'no substance or objects exist'.
Which is a contradiction; what is it exactly that's doing the existing? If asked this questions many times (3 or 4 times up until now) and you still have not answered it.

I've not answered it because my position in this thread is that "nothing exists". There isn't anything 'doing the existing'. If you are trying to say that something must necessarily do so, simply asserting so will not convince me.

Something can contradict what is true but not be a self-contradiction (not be inherently self-defeating), so to show the latter you must show that the statement "no substance exists" implies the existence of substance deductively.
I have shown that this is a contradiction in the form exist/not-exist and you have yet to demonstrate what is doing the existing in nothingness...

Where does 'exist' in the positive come into it? For it to be an exist / not-exist contradiction it must imply both positive and negative, but "no things exist" is unilaterally negative with regard to the existence of things, hence there's no contradiction. There are no things, and no things are doing any existing.

Ask yourself:
(1) What is it exactly that is performing the action of being real?
That action ('being real' as a verb) doesn't take place.
And thus "nothingness" is unreal which means that it is not a possibility, incoherent, meaningless, contradiction, fantasy, etc. etc. etc.

Nothingness isn't an object, it describes no things existing; and since - as I've argued - 'things' is a necessarily self-defeating (nonsense) concept, nothingness is necessarily true.

(2) Where is the reality taking place?
There is no location at which reality 'takes place'.
Sure, the same place that square-circles happen: no where. See above.

Are you arguing that reality is a location?

For example, if someone is not wearing a shirt, we might describe them as 'shirtless'. This does not entail a positive entity called 'no shirt' actually existing.
Again, here you are negating ONLY a shirt which makes shirtless, everything else in the Universe that is not a shirt. This is very different from negating all of existence, when you do that the only thing left are things that do not exist: fantasies, contradictions, meaninglessness, etc. For example, a car is shirtless, happiness is shirtless, a person wearing a sweater or coat (without a shirt of course) is shirtless, an apple, etc.

When you say "the only things left" you're implying that those things that are left are things that existed in the first place, which is not only nonsense because they are defined as not existing, but also does not follow from my statement 'nothing exists'.

My point with the 'shirtless' example was to illustrate how 'nothingness' does not need to be a positive state which 'does the existing', but can be a completely negative concept, alike to "nothing is a square-circle", which is true but does not make a positive statement of any object. 'Nothing' simply denotes a lack.

A lack of ALL objects or ALL substance IS a lack of reality; ergo, not real. If it were a lack of SPECIFIC objects to which there are others in its place, then it could be a coherent concept and real because there would be OTHER objects doing the existing.
You're assuming that reality necessarily consists only and entirely of objects.
As opposed to what, composed of non-objects? That's absurd.

You're begging the question in assuming that reality must consist of objects. Reality is consistency received through our imposed limits; and there are no independent objects, our ideas of objects comes when we abstract those consistent perceptions into concepts.

For X to be a sensible term, not-X must be able to exist without entailing an internal contradiction.
So you are saying: "For REALITY to be a sensible term, UNREALITY must be able to exist without entailing an internal contradiction." Thus you are quite mistaken.

Unreality in that case is our imagination; non-consistent perceptions. There are only consistent perceptions and inconsistent ones, and all else is word-games.

Real / imaginary is a sensible distinction, because both sides can 'exist' (we can experience them). Real / 'empty' is a nonsense distinction, because emptiness is a word referring to no sensible idea. Hence, 'something' is nonsense because its opposition which it's defined in relation to is nonsense.

Precisely. This is because something will ALWAYS take the place of something else in the Universe. So, because you are negating only a portion of existence (greenness) and that negation is ALWAYS replaced by another portion of existence (non-greenness.) That (color) which is not-green is ALWAYS another color (counting black and white as colors as well.) What you cannot do is negate ALL of existence and arrive at a meaningful or coherent definition.
If with anything you point to, the descriptor 'has substance' gives unilaterally the feedback 'yes' to its criteria, then the situation is functionally identical to if it had no criteria at all; ie, it's an undefined term.
That does not address my points above; they still stand. I would have addressed it regardless, but it is obtuse and unclear. If you want me to address it, rephrase it more clearly and address my points as well.

I don't think your points above rebut my argument; you simply state that 'something must always replace something else' and then demand that I do not 'negate all of existence'. All of that rests on an assumed paradigm which I reject, precluding your argument before it's relevant.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 10:05:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
(Continued)

Basically my point which you found unclear was just saying that if no case doesn't fit the criteria of a term's definition, then there is no sense to the term; it doesn't refer to anything.

At 5/1/2014 6:04:47 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
A statement of the existence of X in reality is also implicitly a statement of the existence of not-X in reality.

2) Again, this is true so long as not-X refers to some other thing that has taken the place of X.
So you agree that:

The existence of X also entails the existence of not-X as "another thing that has taken the place of X".

Therefore:

The existence of substance also entails the existence of non-substance (emptiness) which can take the place of substance.
No because:

1) You have failed to show that there is such a thing as non-substance.

My argument is predicated on non-substance as emptiness being non-sense, and that the assertion that substance exists also implies emptiness, so of course I'm not going to show there's such a thing as emptiness; if my argument works, it should show that there couldn't be.

To make this clear, my statement:

"A statement of the existence of X in reality is also implicitly a statement of the existence of not-X in reality."

Could not be predicated on whether not-X exists, since that is its conclusion. To say, "A statement of the existence of X implies the existence of not-X only if not X exists," would be an almost redundant statement, and it was not what I said.

Your response, "Again, this is true so long as not-X refers to some other thing that has taken the place of X", does not not-X must exist for the principle to be true, only that the not-X which is implied is "some other thing".

2) You've only demonstrated in fact that there is no functional difference between substance and non-substance.

How?

3) Again, this is a contradiction in the form substance/non-substance.

Substance leads to a contradiction, yes. That is my argument.

Which is impossible, meaning substance is an inherently self-defeating concept.
No, it means that non-substance is an inherently self-defeating concept.

If non-substance is self-defeating, then there is no meaning to substance because it points to everything and nothing simultaneously. It points in theory to anything (because it would have to be self-defeating nonsense to fit the criteria of emptiness,) but specifies nothing. Hence there is nothing communicated by the term.

You still have not shown that a "lack of ALL substance" exists.
Argument that reality must lack all substance:

1. The existence of X entails the existence of "some other thing" not-X. [Agreed to by yourself above.]
I never agreed to it; this statement is not ALWAYS true for all cases.

But you agreed to it only with the addition that not-X is always "some other thing", not that the statement didn't always apply. It was implied that the statement is universal.

Definitions ARE mental conceptions thus they cannot exist without a mind. Nonetheless, I will concede that such a definition can be an objective definition.

The latter sentence contradicts the former. You basically said that definitions are mental conceptions which can be mind-independent.

If it is connected to something outside itself then it is not in itself an object.
This statement is SUBJECTIVE and depends on your OPINION as to what constitutes an object and what does not. If you have 2 objects and they are connected then you have 2 connected objects; there's nothing inherently absurd about that concept.

Your defining them as two depends on your subjective definition, hence the statement "there are two objects here", as opposed to 1, 3, 4, or 1000, is only subjective and has no objective value. Hence, the only was to arrive at an 'objective object' would be to impose emptiness on the world, to differentiate it.

There is an "all things" and it's called existence or the Universe. This "collection" is a complete collection that is not lacking and all of it is connected. You don't need to specify internal/external as there is no "external" to this collection; that is, externality with respects to this collection, is a contradiction, absurdity, meaninglessness, etc.

This "collection" is undefined, because there's no way to differentiate it or any of its components. The word does not correspond to anything, nor show any idea other than confusion.

Subjectively defining lines within it is one thing and objectively defining them is another. Regardless, we can take the approach that there are no subdivisions in "the undivided whole" (as David Bohm called it) but all this means is there is 1 not 2 things like you are implying. There is reality all of existence and then that is all, the only thing left is non-existence which simply does not exist. Again, ONE thing not TWO.

To call it a 'whole' imposes a limit. It is "all" of reality, and no more. What is it limited by? The term inherently presupposes an externality.

To say that something is 'one' and that it exists in a positive sense is to say that it is 'not the non-one', and that it is defined in differentiation from the non-one.

At 5/1/2014 6:05:22 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
A limit, however, can only apply to a concept. When we define a concept, we are creating an opposition between what is inside the concept and what is outside it.
False distinction. By your own reasoning: if concept exists then so does non-concept.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I don't understand how that disproves what I said.
You agree that "if concept exists then so does non-concept"? That's like agreeing with a square-circle; that's meaningless. Again it is false that "if concept exists then so does non-concept."

Defining something is differentiating it from what it isn't. If there's no non-concept then there's no concept.

What is inside the concept gains meaning by being compared to what is outside it, and is considered 'limited' because an intention is imposed.
No idea what this string of words even means.
Things are always defined with intention.
Obviously.

Basically, if I point at something and name it I am doing so with an intention to differentiate it.
Even if you don't point to anything, there's already a differentiation: you vs not-you.

That's a subjective / arbitrary differentiation, the distance between you and not-you is a gradation.

Without intention, there is no differentiation and vice-versa.
This is a SUBJECTIVE point; realize that.

What do you mean to prove by saying that? All words are defined subjectively.

Then, there is no object 'limited to itself'.
Only if there is no self and if there is no self then NONE of what you say holds meaning.

I don't know what you're saying here. The self is not an objectively defined word; it's an idea.

Which is basically to say that there are no defined things.
Which is basically the same as not saying anything or a square-circle or "as adsfasd fsda sdfas a".

No. Defined things is nonsense, only words are defined.

Yet here we are and you have yet to demonstrate 1) that nothingness is a coherent concept or that 2) substance is incoherent; heck, you didn't even define substance to begin with!

It's difficult to define an incoherent idea, but substance would refer to ontology, and any idea of a common positive attribute in any given thing which has 'being'. I add 'substance' rather than just 'objects', because while someone might agree that there are no objectively differentiated objects, they still might hold that there is 'being' (for instance people that say "all is one", etc.)
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 4:32:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 10:02:47 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:01:28 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/30/2014 1:01:52 AM, sdavio wrote:
Emptiness would mean that an entity of 'without' fits the category 'exists'.
That's a contradiction in the form exist/not-exist. What exactly is it that's doing the existing?
We agree that emptiness is a contradiction.
Yes.

Nothingness means that there are no things (no-thing-ness) which fit the category of 'existing'.
We already have a name for that: non-existence; ergo, nothingness is non-existence, nothingness does not exist.
No, because nothingness applies specifically to the concept of 'things', which non-existence does not specify what is not existing.
1) You are suggesting a false distinction here: what else other than things can nothingness refer to?

2) You said "non-existence does not specify what is not existing" as if nothingness does specify what is not existing; hence, they are no different.

3) You are drawing false distinctions between the two; ergo, nothingness is non-existence.

Emptiness is positive with regard to some entity, while nothingness is negative.
1) They are both incoherent concepts; ergo, there's no difference.
I won't be convinced that nothingness is incoherent until I see how 'substance exists' can be deductively derived from 'substance does not exist'.
1) Non sequitur: nothingness can be incoherent without "needing to see that 'substance exists' can be deductively derived from 'substance does not exist'."

2) Suffice it to say that nothingness does not refer to anything that exists; ergo, it does not exist.

2) Can you give me examples of real things that exist that are not substance? I will need to empirically verify these things.
There are no 'real things'.
"There are no real things" is not a coherent concept and does not exist by definition. Again, what is it that's doing the existing? A square-circle is a "there are no real things."
I can't make sense of any of the above.
That's because what you are proposing doesn't make sense: garbage-in gets you garbage-out. It's straightforward: when you have the condition of "there are no real things" you have the same conditions of non-existence, of things that do not exist, of square-circles: all the same.

And, asking "What objects exist?" in response to me asserting that objects do not exist is begging the question.
Now you're just playing word games.

I claim: "objects that do not exist" don't exist.
You claim: "objects do not exist" exist.

I claim: "there are no real things" isn't real & doesn't exist.
You claim: "there are no real things" is real & does exist.

How is it not clear to you that you are in contradiction?

It's like if I were against gun control and you asked "So why is it that gun control saves so many lives?" It isn't an argument, since the implicit premise of the question is the conclusion you're supposed to be arguing for.
That is no where near being analogous to the situation at hand; so forget about this and see above.

No, I am simply negating the existence of any substance.
That cannot be done without arriving at incoherence or contradiction. Existence cannot be negated. Your use of substance is redundant.
Saying that the existence of substance cannot be negated in response to me negating substance isn't an argument.
There are 2 things going on here:

1) You are being redundant which makes me think that you are either being deceptive or confused. I will extend a courtesy and consider it the latter.

2) If substance = existence (which is what you were suggesting and why you're being redundant) then the negation of substance = the negation of existence = non-existence = does not exist.

So, how much more clearly can it be shown that the negation of existence does not exist?

Nothingness = no substance / objects; 'nothing exists' = 'no substance or objects exist'.
Which is a contradiction; what is it exactly that's doing the existing? I've asked this questions many times (3 or 4 times up until now) and you still have not answered it.
I've not answered it because my position in this thread is that "nothing exists".
That doesn't answer the question, it begs it.

There isn't anything 'doing the existing'.
Precisely! Just like with "square-circles" there isn't anything 'doing the existing'.

If you are trying to say that something must necessarily do so, simply asserting so will not convince me.
Obviously, otherwise there wouldn't be a difference between existence and non-existence. Lol!

Something can contradict what is true but not be a self-contradiction (not be inherently self-defeating), so to show the latter you must show that the statement "no substance exists" implies the existence of substance deductively.
I have shown that this is a contradiction in the form exist/not-exist and you have yet to demonstrate what is doing the existing in nothingness...
Where does 'exist' in the positive come into it?
Another false distinction in the form of positive/negative existence. Existence is positive and non-existence is negative; ergo, we are talking about existence (positive) not non-existence (negative.)

For it to be an exist / not-exist contradiction it must imply both positive and negative, but "no things exist" is unilaterally negative with regard to the existence of things, hence there's no contradiction. There are no things, and no things are doing any existing.
And because it "is unilaterally negative" it is non-existence and non-existence does not exist. You are claiming that "no things exist" (which is unilaterally negative) exists which is unilaterally positive. How much more obvious can it get?

Ask yourself:
(1) What is it exactly that is performing the action of being real?
That action ('being real' as a verb) doesn't take place.
And thus "nothingness" is unreal which means that it is not a possibility, incoherent, meaningless, contradiction, fantasy, etc. etc. etc.
Nothingness isn't an object, it describes no things existing;
Precisely! It describes non-existence! And as you know, non-existence doesn't exist!

...and since - as I've argued - 'things' is a necessarily self-defeating (nonsense) concept, nothingness is necessarily true.
Non-sequitur. You've yet to show nothingness exists let alone get to the argument above, which is itself a self-defeating argument.

(2) Where is the reality taking place?
There is no location at which reality 'takes place'.
Sure, the same place that square-circles happen: no where. See above.
Are you arguing that reality is a location?
Lol! The question is rather clear: where is the reality taking place?

1) You chose not to answer it.
2) I answered it for you and you did not refute my answer.
Clearly you cannot defend your position in either instance.

(Continued...)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 4:36:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 10:02:47 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:01:28 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/30/2014 1:01:52 AM, sdavio wrote:
(...Continued)

For example, if someone is not wearing a shirt, we might describe them as 'shirtless'. This does not entail a positive entity called 'no shirt' actually existing.
Again, here you are negating ONLY a shirt which makes shirtless, everything else in the Universe that is not a shirt. This is very different from negating all of existence, when you do that the only thing left are things that do not exist: fantasies, contradictions, meaninglessness, etc. For example, a car is shirtless, happiness is shirtless, a person wearing a sweater or coat (without a shirt of course) is shirtless, an apple, etc.
When you say "the only things left" you're implying that those things that are left are things that existed in the first place, which is not only nonsense because they are defined as not existing, but also does not follow from my statement 'nothing exists'.
I see, so because you cannot defend your argument you now resort to rhetoric. Now you're basically claiming that "existence" is meaningless which then makes 'nothing exists' meaningless as well. QED.

My point with the 'shirtless' example was to illustrate how 'nothingness' does not need to be a positive state which 'does the existing', but can be a completely negative concept, alike to "nothing is a square-circle", which is true but does not make a positive statement of any object. 'Nothing' simply denotes a lack.
Yes, it denotes that the shirt DOES NOT EXIST on the person; ergo, it is describing something that does NOT exist. Can it be any more obvious?

A lack of ALL objects or ALL substance IS a lack of reality; ergo, not real. If it were a lack of SPECIFIC objects to which there are others in its place, then it could be a coherent concept and real because there would be OTHER objects doing the existing.
You're assuming that reality necessarily consists only and entirely of objects.
As opposed to what, composed of non-objects? That's absurd.
You're begging the question in assuming that reality must consist of objects.
It's an axiom. Again, where are your objective examples of reality that doesn't consist of objects?

Reality is consistency received through our imposed limits...
And there is no consistency in "a reality that doesn't consist of objects." What is it that's being real? What is it that's being consistent? Yeah, exactly.

...and there are no independent objects, our ideas of objects comes when we abstract those consistent perceptions into concepts.
1) The above is self-refuting.

2) The above is also semantic rhetoric.

For X to be a sensible term, not-X must be able to exist without entailing an internal contradiction.
So you are saying: "For REALITY to be a sensible term, UNREALITY must be able to exist without entailing an internal contradiction." Thus you are quite mistaken.
Unreality in that case is our imagination; non-consistent perceptions. There are only consistent perceptions and inconsistent ones, and all else is word-games.
So then stop playing word games. The fact is that you are claiming that unreality is reality; that imaginary is real; more commonly known as "you're contradicting yourself."

Real / imaginary is a sensible distinction, because both sides can 'exist' (we can experience them).
More word games. You said previously that real = exist now you are saying that there are things that exist that are not real and again contradicting yourself. Also, I made the distinction real/unreal not real/imaginary.

Real / 'empty' is a nonsense distinction, because emptiness is a word referring to no sensible idea.
That is false because all things that are unreal are indeed non-sensible.

Hence, 'something' is nonsense because its opposition which it's defined in relation to is nonsense.
No, something is nonsense because it lacks sense. Do keep up.

Precisely. This is because something will ALWAYS take the place of something else in the Universe. So, because you are negating only a portion of existence (greenness) and that negation is ALWAYS replaced by another portion of existence (non-greenness.) That (color) which is not-green is ALWAYS another color (counting black and white as colors as well.) What you cannot do is negate ALL of existence and arrive at a meaningful or coherent definition.
If with anything you point to, the descriptor 'has substance' gives unilaterally the feedback 'yes' to its criteria, then the situation is functionally identical to if it had no criteria at all; ie, it's an undefined term.
That does not address my points above; they still stand. I would have addressed it regardless, but it is obtuse and unclear. If you want me to address it, rephrase it more clearly and address my points as well.
I don't think your points above rebut my argument...
Then you do not understand reason because they clearly do.

...you simply state that 'something must always replace something else'
That's because it does and you have failed to demonstrate otherwise.

...and then demand that I do not 'negate all of existence'
Wrong, I demonstrated that when we negate all of existence we arrive at a contradiction. You are perfectly welcome to negate all of existence in much the same way you are welcome to believe in square-circles; I merely pointed out that doing so puts you in contradiction.

All of that rests on an assumed paradigm which I reject, precluding your argument before it's relevant.
You can reject the law of non-contradiction, but then I don't see how you can really make any arguments.

Basically my point which you found unclear was just saying that if no case doesn't fit the criteria of a term's definition, then there is no sense to the term; it doesn't refer to anything.
Precisely, that's why when I asked you to provide cases and you failed to do so it showed that nothingness doesn't refer to anything; ergo, it doesn't exist. Yet again.

The existence of X also entails the existence of not-X as "another thing that has taken the place of X".

Therefore:

The existence of substance also entails the existence of non-substance (emptiness) which can take the place of substance.
No because:

1) You have failed to show that there is such a thing as non-substance.
My argument is predicated on non-substance as emptiness being non-sense, and that the assertion that substance exists also implies emptiness, so of course I'm not going to show there's such a thing as emptiness; if my argument works, it should show that there couldn't be.
The problem is that the premise is always false: garbage-in = garbage-out. You said "non-substance as emptiness is nonsense" the problem is that non-substance itself is nonsense THEREFORE "non-substance as ANYTHING is nonsense." How can you hope to build an argument from a premise that is false? You can't.

(Continued...)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 5:06:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 10:02:47 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:01:28 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/30/2014 1:01:52 AM, sdavio wrote:
(...Continued)

To make this clear, my statement:

"A statement of the existence of X in reality is also implicitly a statement of the existence of not-X in reality."

Could not be predicated on whether not-X exists, since that is its conclusion. To say, "A statement of the existence of X implies the existence of not-X only if not X exists," would be an almost redundant statement, and it was not what I said.
I have demonstrated your statement to be false several times.

Your response, "Again, this is true so long as not-X refers to some other thing that has taken the place of X", <<<does not not-X must exist for the principle to be true, only that the not-X which is implied is "some other thing".>>>
The above between <<<>>> is incoherent; please rephrase.

2) You've only demonstrated in fact that there is no functional difference between substance and non-substance.
How?
By saying that "non-substance can take the place of substance."

3) Again, this is a contradiction in the form substance/non-substance.
Substance leads to a contradiction, yes. That is my argument.
No, non-substance leads to a contradiction because it is itself a contradiction; you've based your argument on a contradiction thus your argument is in contradiction.

Which is impossible, meaning substance is an inherently self-defeating concept.
No, it means that non-substance is an inherently self-defeating concept.
If non-substance is self-defeating, then there is no meaning to substance because it points to everything and nothing simultaneously.
No, it does not. Substance points only to things that exist and nothingness does not exist; ergo substance does not point to nothingness. QED, yet again.

It points in theory to anything (because it would have to be self-defeating nonsense to fit the criteria of emptiness,) but specifies nothing. Hence there is nothing communicated by the term.
IT would really help not to be so vague. I have no idea what you mean by "it" above: is it substance or non-substance or what? Please restate.

You still have not shown that a "lack of ALL substance" exists.
Argument that reality must lack all substance:

1. The existence of X entails the existence of "some other thing" not-X. [Agreed to by yourself above.]
I never agreed to it; this statement is not ALWAYS true for all cases.
But you agreed to it only with the addition that not-X is always "some other thing", not that the statement didn't always apply.
And it doesn't apply when there isn't some other thing, like some of the examples you are suggesting.

It was implied that the statement is universal.
And so when I agreed to it with AN EXCEPTION then it should have been clear that it is not universal; HENCE the exception.

Let's be clear: the statement "The existence of X entails the existence of not-X" is true IF AND ONLY IF "not-X" is a coherent concept. Case in point: TRUE exists while it's opposite, FALSE, does not. I seriously hope not to see you respond with an equivocation regarding EXISTS.

If there is an object independent of a subjective conceptualizing faculty, the definition of the object must exist in reality and not be created by a mind.
Definitions ARE mental conceptions thus they cannot exist without a mind. Nonetheless, I will concede that such a definition can be an objective definition.
The latter sentence contradicts the former. You basically said that definitions are mental conceptions which can be mind-independent.
You do realize that I conceded YOUR point, right? Anyways, I am saying that the abstraction requires a mind (definition) but the object being defined does not.

If it is connected to something outside itself then it is not in itself an object.
This statement is SUBJECTIVE and depends on your OPINION as to what constitutes an object and what does not. If you have 2 objects and they are connected then you have 2 connected objects; there's nothing inherently absurd about that concept.
Your defining them as two depends on your subjective definition, hence the statement "there are two objects here", as opposed to 1, 3, 4, or 1000, is only subjective and has no objective value.
1) By your reasoning, one can never refer to objective; by your reasoning objective is not real and is meaningless; by your reasoning subjective/objective demonstrates that "The existence of X entails the existence of not-X" is false.

2) I was referring to 2, objectively.

Hence, the only way to arrive at an 'objective object' would be to impose emptiness on the world, to differentiate it.
More nonsense.
1) Your basically claiming that objectivity does not exist which is in clear violation of your own rule that "The existence of X entails the existence of not-X"; so you are again in contradiction.

2) The phrase "impose emptiness on the world" is incoherent because it amounts to world/no-world.

3) So what you're saying boils down to: "Hence, the only way to arrive at 'objectivity' would be to accept a contradiction as true in order to differentiate it." So, no.

There is an "all things" and it's called existence or the Universe. This "collection" is a complete collection that is not lacking and all of it is connected. You don't need to specify internal/external as there is no "external" to this collection; that is, externality with respects to this collection, is a contradiction, absurdity, meaninglessness, etc.
This "collection" is undefined...
And yet I just coherently defined it.

...because there's no way to differentiate it or any of its components.
1) There is a way to differentiate it: it is not its contradiction, for starters.

2) Indeed we are able to differentiate its components via the myriad of empirical evidence known to us as physics.

The word does not correspond to anything, nor show any idea other than confusion.
Well it doesn't correspond to any thing, but rather everything. The fact that it confuses you speaks about you; it does not confuse me. Furthermore, you've failed to demonstrate that it is incoherent.

Subjectively defining lines within it is one thing and objectively defining them is another. Regardless, we can take the approach that there are no subdivisions in "the undivided whole" (as David Bohm called it) but all this means is there is 1 not 2 things like you are implying. There is reality all of existence and then that is all, the only thing left is non-existence which simply does not exist. Again, ONE thing not TWO.
To call it a 'whole' imposes a limit.
"Limit" in the sense that it is limited by its definition.

It is "all" of reality, and no more.
There isn't any more for it to be.

What is it limited by?
1) If you mean "limit" as in "definition", then I've done that already, see above.

2) If you mean "limit" as in geometry or mathematics, then I would say that it is unlimited or infinite. However, the mathematical terms "unlimited" and "infinite" are incomplete and/or inconsistent when applied here: math is an abstraction of "all of reality."

The term inherently presupposes an externality.
No, that does not follow; making more assumptions, I see. Anyways, I will make it explicitly clear: there is no outside to everything.

(Continued...)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.