Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

The Logic of Contradiction

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 9:11:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A long and perplexing conversation, with myself, has brought me to that which is inconceivable, the very idea something could indeed come from nothing. I know this sounds like a contradiction, and, notwithstanding, it is; yet, contradictions are as real as our own identities: as finite beings, we define that which is infinite; and, with knowing, we know the unknown. If weren't for nothing, not a thing would exist; and, if weren't for something, neither nothing.

To explain, it is the very nature of contradiction that accommodates and makes sense out of all things; a thing is not a thing, if not a thing does not exist; in other words, one gives meaning to the other. If only thingness existed and all experience were one, in other words, it were to have neither beginning nor end, it would have no definition, or meaning; a single limitless value is no value at all. Yet, if only nothing existed and there were not something to define it, it had neither beginning nor end, it would have no definition, or meaning; it could not be said to exist. Nonexistence exists, in that existence exists. Nonexistence is both nonexistence and existence, at once.
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 10:29:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 9:11:03 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A long and perplexing conversation, with myself, has brought me to that which is inconceivable, the very idea something could indeed come from nothing. I know this sounds like a contradiction, and, notwithstanding, it is; yet, contradictions are as real as our own identities: as finite beings, we define that which is infinite; and, with knowing, we know the unknown. If weren't for nothing, not a thing would exist; and, if weren't for something, neither nothing.

To explain, it is the very nature of contradiction that accommodates and makes sense out of all things; a thing is not a thing, if not a thing does not exist; in other words, one gives meaning to the other. If only thingness existed and all experience were one, in other words, it were to have neither beginning nor end, it would have no definition, or meaning; a single limitless value is no value at all. Yet, if only nothing existed and there were not something to define it, it had neither beginning nor end, it would have no definition, or meaning; it could not be said to exist. Nonexistence exists, in that existence exists. Nonexistence is both nonexistence and existence, at once.

I've heard this idea being tossed around before. One of my buddies is very fond of it, but my problem with it is that things don't necessarily need to be defined. It seems to fall apart for me when I think about how nothing needs a definition to exist. A definition is an extremely human concept that in the grand scheme of things is pretty arbitrary. We have the concept of nothing but bottom line is nothing is (for lack of a better word) nothing. Its similar for me to un-real numbers, which we have a concept of but can't actually exist.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 3:16:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 10:29:53 AM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 9:11:03 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A long and perplexing conversation, with myself, has brought me to that which is inconceivable, the very idea something could indeed come from nothing. I know this sounds like a contradiction, and, notwithstanding, it is; yet, contradictions are as real as our own identities: as finite beings, we define that which is infinite; and, with knowing, we know the unknown. If weren't for nothing, not a thing would exist; and, if weren't for something, neither nothing.

To explain, it is the very nature of contradiction that accommodates and makes sense out of all things; a thing is not a thing, if not a thing does not exist; in other words, one gives meaning to the other. If only thingness existed and all experience were one, in other words, it were to have neither beginning nor end, it would have no definition, or meaning; a single limitless value is no value at all. Yet, if only nothing existed and there were not something to define it, it had neither beginning nor end, it would have no definition, or meaning; it could not be said to exist. Nonexistence exists, in that existence exists. Nonexistence is both nonexistence and existence, at once.

I've heard this idea being tossed around before. One of my buddies is very fond of it, but my problem with it is that things don't necessarily need to be defined. It seems to fall apart for me when I think about how nothing needs a definition to exist. A definition is an extremely human concept that in the grand scheme of things is pretty arbitrary. We have the concept of nothing but bottom line is nothing is (for lack of a better word) nothing. Its similar for me to un-real numbers, which we have a concept of but can't actually exist.

I agree, with you, absolutely. Nothing does not need defining, to exist; but, it does need defining, to have meaning, and value. If it had no meaning, to us, we wouldn't be talking about it.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 4:57:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 10:48:19 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Are you sure you didn't get this from the CTMU lol?

No. I'm not familiar, with CTMU. I followed the link though; it sounds interesting but very technical. I'll have to take a little bit of time, with it, to understand it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 5:18:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 4:57:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:48:19 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Are you sure you didn't get this from the CTMU lol?

No. I'm not familiar, with CTMU. I followed the link though; it sounds interesting but very technical. I'll have to take a little bit of time, with it, to understand it.

Make sure to read the sections on "UBT", "Something can't come from nothing" and "Tautologies are meaningless".
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 5:24:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 5:18:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:57:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:48:19 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Are you sure you didn't get this from the CTMU lol?

No. I'm not familiar, with CTMU. I followed the link though; it sounds interesting but very technical. I'll have to take a little bit of time, with it, to understand it.

Make sure to read the sections on "UBT", "Something can't come from nothing" and "Tautologies are meaningless".

I read "Something can't come from nothing" but not "Tautologies are meaningless." Thanks, for the information.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 4:34:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 9:11:03 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A long and perplexing conversation, with myself, has brought me to that which is inconceivable, the very idea something could indeed come from nothing.
Yet if it was inconceivable, how is it that you conceived it? Or maybe you were speaking metaphorically...

I know this sounds like a contradiction, and, notwithstanding, it is; yet, contradictions are as real as our own identities...
It depends what you mean by real. If by real, you mean "able to be expressed with words", sure but then that's not a very useful definition of real. If that's the case, then there really wouldn't be much that is unreal...actually, there wouldn't be anything that's expressible with words that could be unreal! This is why I prefer "real" to indicate "expressible in physical reality."

...as finite beings, we define that which is infinite...
Sure, some people define infinite as an "I don't know", which isn't much of a definition in so far as it doesn't really relate knowledge. Unless you define it differently...

...and, with knowing, we know the unknown.
The unknown, is not known; unless you're back to metaphorical language...

If weren't for nothing, not a thing would exist; and, if weren't for something, neither nothing.
The above is a meaningless phrase; it is incoherent...unless you have some metaphoric interpretation that has escaped me. It isn't even proper English.

To explain, it is the very nature of contradiction that accommodates and makes sense out of all things; a thing is not a thing, if not a thing does not exist...
More meaningless drivel. Some thing "A" can exist without the need for "not A" existing; this does not mean that there is no concept "not A" but rather that the concept "not A" is not coherently expressible in reality.

...in other words, one gives meaning to the other.
Couldn't you just have said that? All I see here is that there are 2 concepts: one is a concept of something that exists and the other of something that does not. The concepts "need" each other but what they represent, do not.

If only thingness existed and all experience were one, in other words, it were to have neither beginning nor end, it would have no definition, or meaning; a single limitless value is no value at all.
That's if there were only one thing. However, thingness can exist when there are 1 or MORE things. As such, there are beginnings and ends; definitions, meaning, etc. Regardless, even if there were only one thing (the least amount of existence possible) there is still existence, oneness, etc.

Yet, if only nothing existed and there were not something to define it...
That's not a coherent statement; it equates to exist-not-exists: a contradiction or meaninglessness.

...it had neither beginning nor end, it would have no definition, or meaning; it could not be said to exist.
I agree, but not for the non sequitur reasons you stated above. Simply put: nothingness or non-existence cannot exist.

Nonexistence exists, in that existence exists.
The above equates to saying False = True in that True = True, otherwise known as more meaningless drivel.

Nonexistence is both nonexistence and existence, at once.
The above equates to saying False = False and False = True at once, otherwise known as more meaningless drivel.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 4:56:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 9:11:03 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A long and perplexing conversation, with myself, has brought me to that which is inconceivable, the very idea something could indeed come from nothing. I know this sounds like a contradiction, and, notwithstanding, it is; yet, contradictions are as real as our own identities: as finite beings, we define that which is infinite; and, with knowing, we know the unknown. If weren't for nothing, not a thing would exist; and, if weren't for something, neither nothing.

To explain, it is the very nature of contradiction that accommodates and makes sense out of all things; a thing is not a thing, if not a thing does not exist; in other words, one gives meaning to the other. If only thingness existed and all experience were one, in other words, it were to have neither beginning nor end, it would have no definition, or meaning; a single limitless value is no value at all. Yet, if only nothing existed and there were not something to define it, it had neither beginning nor end, it would have no definition, or meaning; it could not be said to exist. Nonexistence exists, in that existence exists. Nonexistence is both nonexistence and existence, at once.

Put your hands where we can see them, and very slowly, step away from the bong.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 12:50:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 4:34:51 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/30/2014 9:11:03 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A long and perplexing conversation, with myself, has brought me to that which is inconceivable, the very idea something could indeed come from nothing.
Yet if it was inconceivable, how is it that you conceived it? Or maybe you were speaking metaphorically...

A thing is conceivable and inconceivable, at once. If a thing weren't inconceivable, its conception would be meaningless.


I know this sounds like a contradiction, and, notwithstanding, it is; yet, contradictions are as real as our own identities...
It depends what you mean by real. If by real, you mean "able to be expressed with words", sure but then that's not a very useful definition of real. If that's the case, then there really wouldn't be much that is unreal...actually, there wouldn't be anything that's expressible with words that could be unreal! This is why I prefer "real" to indicate "expressible in physical reality."

By real, I mean that which is.


...as finite beings, we define that which is infinite...
Sure, some people define infinite as an "I don't know", which isn't much of a definition in so far as it doesn't really relate knowledge. Unless you define it differently...

You can't define something and say it's indefinable and, then, say contradictions are not real.


...and, with knowing, we know the unknown.
The unknown, is not known; unless you're back to metaphorical language...

That which is unknown is, also, known. Knowledge doesn't make sense, if ignorance doesn't exist. In other words, it doesn't make sense to say I know something, if it's not, also, unknown.


If weren't for nothing, not a thing would exist; and, if weren't for something, neither nothing.
The above is a meaningless phrase; it is incoherent...unless you have some metaphoric interpretation that has escaped me. It isn't even proper English.

No. Limitless, undivided being is meaningless, and incoherent.


To explain, it is the very nature of contradiction that accommodates and makes sense out of all things; a thing is not a thing, if not a thing does not exist...
More meaningless drivel. Some thing "A" can exist without the need for "not A" existing; this does not mean that there is no concept "not A" but rather that the concept "not A" is not coherently expressible in reality.

So, (A) could exist, in the absence of not-A? Meaning, all that is, is (A); and, (A) alone exists?


...in other words, one gives meaning to the other.
Couldn't you just have said that? All I see here is that there are 2 concepts: one is a concept of something that exists and the other of something that does not. The concepts "need" each other but what they represent, do not.

If these things do not exist, then, what is it we are conceiving?


If only thingness existed and all experience were one, in other words, it were to have neither beginning nor end, it would have no definition, or meaning; a single limitless value is no value at all.
That's if there were only one thing. However, thingness can exist when there are 1 or MORE things. As such, there are beginnings and ends; definitions, meaning, etc. Regardless, even if there were only one thing (the least amount of existence possible) there is still existence, oneness, etc.

Yes. Oneness and nothingness.


Yet, if only nothing existed and there were not something to define it...
That's not a coherent statement; it equates to exist-not-exists: a contradiction or meaninglessness.

My point exactly. Nothing makes sense, apart from contradiction.


...it had neither beginning nor end, it would have no definition, or meaning; it could not be said to exist.
I agree, but not for the non sequitur reasons you stated above. Simply put: nothingness or non-existence cannot exist.

How can you give being, to something that does not exist? In other words, how can you tell me the meaning of that which isn't, by telling me that which it is?


Nonexistence exists, in that existence exists.
The above equates to saying False = True in that True = True, otherwise known as more meaningless drivel.

Truth does not make sense, apart from falsehood.


Nonexistence is both nonexistence and existence, at once.
The above equates to saying False = False and False = True at once, otherwise known as more meaningless drivel.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 6:54:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 12:50:02 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/2/2014 4:34:51 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/30/2014 9:11:03 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A long and perplexing conversation, with myself, has brought me to that which is inconceivable, the very idea something could indeed come from nothing.
Yet if it was inconceivable, how is it that you conceived it? Or maybe you were speaking metaphorically...
A thing is conceivable and inconceivable, at once. If a thing weren't inconceivable, its conception would be meaningless.
The above doesn't mean anything; it's incoherent. I can only take from your answer that you are indeed speaking metaphorically. When you express something coherent, then I can respond.

I know this sounds like a contradiction, and, notwithstanding, it is; yet, contradictions are as real as our own identities...
It depends what you mean by real. If by real, you mean "able to be expressed with words", sure but then that's not a very useful definition of real. If that's the case, then there really wouldn't be much that is unreal...actually, there wouldn't be anything that's expressible with words that could be unreal! This is why I prefer "real" to indicate "expressible in physical reality."
By real, I mean that which is.
That doesn't really say much. Is this real coherent or not?

...as finite beings, we define that which is infinite...
Sure, some people define infinite as an "I don't know", which isn't much of a definition in so far as it doesn't really relate knowledge. Unless you define it differently...
You can't define something and say it's indefinable and, then, say contradictions are not real.
1) Defining something coherently; this is what I mean by "defining."

2) Defining something incoherently; this is what I mean by "undefined" or "indifinable." Of course, this isn't really defining, but that's how the language is used.

3) Contradictions are basically the same as 2.

So indeed I can!

...and, with knowing, we know the unknown.
The unknown, is not known; unless you're back to metaphorical language...
That which is unknown is, also, known. Knowledge doesn't make sense, if ignorance doesn't exist. In other words, it doesn't make sense to say I know something, if it's not, also, unknown.
The above doesn't mean anything; it's incoherent. I can only take from your answer that you are indeed speaking metaphorically. When you express something coherent, then I can respond.

If weren't for nothing, not a thing would exist; and, if weren't for something, neither nothing.
The above is a meaningless phrase; it is incoherent...unless you have some metaphoric interpretation that has escaped me. It isn't even proper English.
No. Limitless, undivided being is meaningless, and incoherent.
Not at all. The Universe (or all of existence) will be a limitless undivided whole once it reaches the Omega State.

To explain, it is the very nature of contradiction that accommodates and makes sense out of all things; a thing is not a thing, if not a thing does not exist...
More meaningless drivel. Some thing "A" can exist without the need for "not A" existing; this does not mean that there is no concept "not A" but rather that the concept "not A" is not coherently expressible in reality.
So, (A) could exist, in the absence of not-A?
Yes: Existence exists and Non-Existence does not exist.

Meaning, all that is, is (A); and, (A) alone exists?
Yes: ALL that IS, IS; ALL that IS NOT, IS NOT.

...in other words, one gives meaning to the other.
Couldn't you just have said that? All I see here is that there are 2 concepts: one is a concept of something that exists and the other of something that does not. The concepts "need" each other but what they represent, do not.
If these things do not exist, then, what is it we are conceiving?
We are conceiving a contradiction and as you know, contradictions do not exist. It is important for you (like others it seems) to not equivocate between physical existence and conceptual existence. The first is a real physical thing the other is not; the first has limits (possible), the other does not (possible or impossible.) Also, existence (physical) is not predicated on conception but rather conception on existence.

If only thingness existed and all experience were one, in other words, it were to have neither beginning nor end, it would have no definition, or meaning; a single limitless value is no value at all.
That's if there were only one thing. However, thingness can exist when there are 1 or MORE things. As such, there are beginnings and ends; definitions, meaning, etc. Regardless, even if there were only one thing (the least amount of existence possible) there is still existence, oneness, etc.
Yes. Oneness and nothingness.
No, that's another meaningless contradiction. More of your silly metaphors.
A) One does not equal zero.
B) Oneness and Nothingness are 2 things, not one.

Yet, if only nothing existed and there were not something to define it...
That's not a coherent statement; it equates to exist-not-exists: a contradiction or meaninglessness.
My point exactly. Nothing makes sense, apart from contradiction.
There's no coherent point; you've said nothing...probably more silly metaphoric language that equates to sense = nonsense.

...it had neither beginning nor end, it would have no definition, or meaning; it could not be said to exist.
I agree, but not for the non sequitur reasons you stated above. Simply put: nothingness or non-existence cannot exist.
How can you give being, to something that does not exist?
You can't because "being" isn't something you give.

In other words, how can you tell me the meaning of that which isn't, by telling me that which it is?
Simple: see 1 & 2 at top of post. Existence exists and is coherent, non-existence does not and is not coherent.

Nonexistence exists, in that existence exists.
The above equates to saying False = True in that True = True, otherwise known as more meaningless drivel.
Truth does not make sense, apart from falsehood.
Yes it does: physical reality is the expression of truth without any falsehood. That we need the concept of falsehood to understand truth, is another matter altogether. Just realize that the Universe does not require such things.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 11:47:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 6:54:34 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/3/2014 12:50:02 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/2/2014 4:34:51 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/30/2014 9:11:03 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A long and perplexing conversation, with myself, has brought me to that which is inconceivable, the very idea something could indeed come from nothing.
Yet if it was inconceivable, how is it that you conceived it? Or maybe you were speaking metaphorically...
A thing is conceivable and inconceivable, at once. If a thing weren't inconceivable, its conception would be meaningless.
The above doesn't mean anything; it's incoherent. I can only take from your answer that you are indeed speaking metaphorically. When you express something coherent, then I can respond.

I know this sounds like a contradiction, and, notwithstanding, it is; yet, contradictions are as real as our own identities...
It depends what you mean by real. If by real, you mean "able to be expressed with words", sure but then that's not a very useful definition of real. If that's the case, then there really wouldn't be much that is unreal...actually, there wouldn't be anything that's expressible with words that could be unreal! This is why I prefer "real" to indicate "expressible in physical reality."
By real, I mean that which is.
That doesn't really say much. Is this real coherent or not?

It's coherent, in as much as it's coherent, to you.


...as finite beings, we define that which is infinite...
Sure, some people define infinite as an "I don't know", which isn't much of a definition in so far as it doesn't really relate knowledge. Unless you define it differently...
You can't define something and say it's indefinable and, then, say contradictions are not real.
1) Defining something coherently; this is what I mean by "defining."

I agree.


2) Defining something incoherently; this is what I mean by "undefined" or "indifinable." Of course, this isn't really defining, but that's how the language is used.

You can't define something and, then, say it's indefinable and, then, say that's not a contradiction.


3) Contradictions are basically the same as 2.

So indeed I can!

...and, with knowing, we know the unknown.
The unknown, is not known; unless you're back to metaphorical language...
That which is unknown is, also, known. Knowledge doesn't make sense, if ignorance doesn't exist. In other words, it doesn't make sense to say I know something, if it's not, also, unknown.
The above doesn't mean anything; it's incoherent. I can only take from your answer that you are indeed speaking metaphorically. When you express something coherent, then I can respond.

If weren't for nothing, not a thing would exist; and, if weren't for something, neither nothing.
The above is a meaningless phrase; it is incoherent...unless you have some metaphoric interpretation that has escaped me. It isn't even proper English.
No. Limitless, undivided being is meaningless, and incoherent.
Not at all. The Universe (or all of existence) will be a limitless undivided whole once it reaches the Omega State.

So, does limitless mean undefined and without meaning?


To explain, it is the very nature of contradiction that accommodates and makes sense out of all things; a thing is not a thing, if not a thing does not exist...
More meaningless drivel. Some thing "A" can exist without the need for "not A" existing; this does not mean that there is no concept "not A" but rather that the concept "not A" is not coherently expressible in reality.
So, (A) could exist, in the absence of not-A?
Yes: Existence exists and Non-Existence does not exist.

If nonexistence does not exist, then, neither does existence. You can't define, that which does not exist; and, saying nonexistence is this, but it's not that is defining it.


Meaning, all that is, is (A); and, (A) alone exists?
Yes: ALL that IS, IS; ALL that IS NOT, IS NOT.

If something is nonexistence, you can't tell me that which it is and, then, tell me that's not a contradiction.


...in other words, one gives meaning to the other.
Couldn't you just have said that? All I see here is that there are 2 concepts: one is a concept of something that exists and the other of something that does not. The concepts "need" each other but what they represent, do not.
If these things do not exist, then, what is it we are conceiving?
We are conceiving a contradiction and as you know, contradictions do not exist.

So, we're conceiving nonexistence, in other words, nothing. Correct?

It is important for you (like others it seems) to not equivocate between physical existence and conceptual existence. The first is a real physical thing the other is not; the first has limits (possible), the other does not (possible or impossible.)

So, considering the fact to define something means to limit something, conceptions are without definition, and meaning. Correct?

Also, existence (physical) is not predicated on conception but rather conception on existence.

Can you conceive that which is physical, without conceiving it?


If only thingness existed and all experience were one, in other words, it were to have neither beginning nor end, it would have no definition, or meaning; a single limitless value is no value at all.
That's if there were only one thing. However, thingness can exist when there are 1 or MORE things. As such, there are beginnings and ends; definitions, meaning, etc. Regardless, even if there were only one thing (the least amount of existence possible) there is still existence, oneness, etc.
Yes. Oneness and nothingness.
No, that's another meaningless contradiction. More of your silly metaphors.
A) One does not equal zero.
B) Oneness and Nothingness are 2 things, not one.

One does not exist, without the other.


Yet, if only nothing existed and there were not something to define it...
That's not a coherent statement; it equates to exist-not-exists: a contradiction or meaninglessness.
My point exactly. Nothing makes sense, apart from contradiction.
There's no coherent point; you've said nothing...probably more silly metaphoric language that equates to sense = nonsense.

One does not exist, without the other.


...it had neither beginning nor end, it would have no definition, or meaning; it could not be said to exist.
I agree, but not for the non sequitur reasons you stated above. Simply put: nothingness or non-existence cannot exist.
How can you give being, to something that does not exist?
You can't because "being" isn't something you give.

In other words, how can you tell me the meaning of that which isn't, by telling me that which it is?
Simple: see 1 & 2 at top of post. Existence exists and is coherent, non-existence does not and is not coherent.

Nonexistence exists, in that existence exists.
The above equates to saying False = True in that True = True, otherwise known as more meaningless drivel.
Truth does not make sense, apart from falsehood.
Yes it does: physical reality is the expression of truth without any falsehood. That we need the concept of falsehood to understand truth, is another matter altogether. Just realize that the Universe does not require such things.

We're not apart of the universe?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 12:45:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 11:47:01 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/4/2014 6:54:34 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
By real, I mean that which is.
That doesn't really say much. Is this "real" coherent or not?
It's coherent, in as much as it's coherent, to you.
How would you know what's coherent to me? I obviously meant objectively coherent.

...as finite beings, we define that which is infinite...
Sure, some people define infinite as an "I don't know", which isn't much of a definition in so far as it doesn't really relate knowledge. Unless you define it differently...
You can't define something and say it's indefinable and, then, say contradictions are not real.
1) Defining something coherently; this is what I mean by "defining."
I agree.

2) Defining something incoherently; this is what I mean by "undefined" or "indifinable." Of course, this isn't really defining, but that's how the language is used.
You can't define something and, then, say it's indefinable and, then, say that's not a contradiction.
I guess you missed the part about "that's how the language is used." Yes, you can say that a concept is contradictory. That's what 2 is saying above.

No. Limitless, undivided being is meaningless, and incoherent.
Not at all. The Universe (or all of existence) will be a limitless undivided whole once it reaches the Omega State.
So, does limitless mean undefined and without meaning?
By "limitless" it is meant that there are no things that exist (physically) that aren't part of the Universe.

So, (A) could exist, in the absence of not-A?
Yes: Existence exists and Non-Existence does not exist.
If nonexistence does not exist, then, neither does existence.
That is completely false and circular reasoning. The existence of non-existence is a contradiction which is an impossibility and does not exist.

You can't define, that which does not exist; and, saying nonexistence is this, but it's not that is defining it.
Please stop equivocating physical existence with conceptual existence. I am only referring to physical reality.

Meaning, all that is, is (A); and, (A) alone exists?
Yes: ALL that IS, IS; ALL that IS NOT, IS NOT.
If something is nonexistence, you can't tell me that which it is and, then, tell me that's not a contradiction.
I didn't tell you it's not a contradiction; on the contrary, I told you that it is! I am saying that nonexistence itself IS a contradiction. The reason you cannot understand what I am telling you is that you keep equivocating physical existence with the conceptual.

...in other words, one gives meaning to the other.
Couldn't you just have said that? All I see here is that there are 2 concepts: one is a concept of something that exists and the other of something that does not. The concepts "need" each other but what they represent, do not.
If these things do not exist, then, what is it we are conceiving?
We are conceiving a contradiction and as you know, contradictions do not exist.
So, we're conceiving nonexistence, in other words, nothing. Correct?
Yes, but conceiving something doesn't make it exist (physically) nor does it even make it true.

Existence (physical) is not contingent upon conception; in fact, it's the other way around. Just because you can conceive something does not mean anything other than that you can conceive it. It doesn't even mean the conception is coherent or even that it's true.

As you like to point out so much "If Not-A does not exist, then, neither does A" so does inconceivable exist? And if so, can you give me some examples?

It is important for you (like others it seems) to not equivocate between physical existence and conceptual existence. The first is a real physical thing the other is not; the first has limits (possible), the other does not (possible or impossible.)
So, considering the fact to define something means to limit something, conceptions are without definition, and meaning. Correct?
It's ONLY a fact that defining is a limit when it is within coherence, like in 1 above. It's not a limit when it is not within coherence, like in 2 above.

Also, existence (physical) is not predicated on conception but rather conception on existence.
Can you conceive that which is physical, without conceiving it?
Yes. The above reduces to "conceive-not-conceive" and I can conceive that contradiction just like any other. If you don't like the reduction, then substitute the original phrase and you will get the same answer.

Yes. Oneness and nothingness.
No, that's another meaningless contradiction. More of your silly metaphors.
A) One does not equal zero.
B) Oneness and Nothingness are 2 things, not one.
One does not exist, without the other.
Indeed it does because non-existence is a paradox and paradoxes do not exist in physical reality. Again, the concepts "existence" and "nonexistence" exist BUT only "existence" has expression in physical reality.

My point exactly. Nothing makes sense, apart from contradiction.
There's no coherent point; you've said nothing...probably more silly metaphoric language that equates to sense = nonsense.
One does not exist, without the other.
Indeed one does; see above.

Truth does not make sense, apart from falsehood.
Yes it does: physical reality is the expression of truth without any falsehood. That we need the concept of falsehood to understand truth, is another matter altogether. Just realize that the Universe does not require such things.
We're not apart of the universe?
Yes, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You must be equivocating again between the physical and the conceptual. I thought I asked you to stop doing that? When I say Universe I mean "all of existence (physical.)" Please stop the equivocation, it's getting old.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 3:29:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 12:45:30 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/4/2014 11:47:01 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/4/2014 6:54:34 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
By real, I mean that which is.
That doesn't really say much. Is this "real" coherent or not?
It's coherent, in as much as it's coherent, to you.
How would you know what's coherent to me? I obviously meant objectively coherent.

I have no idea of that which is coherent, to you, or of that which is objectively coherent, to you.


...as finite beings, we define that which is infinite...
Sure, some people define infinite as an "I don't know", which isn't much of a definition in so far as it doesn't really relate knowledge. Unless you define it differently...
You can't define something and say it's indefinable and, then, say contradictions are not real.
1) Defining something coherently; this is what I mean by "defining."
I agree.

2) Defining something incoherently; this is what I mean by "undefined" or "indifinable." Of course, this isn't really defining, but that's how the language is used.
You can't define something and, then, say it's indefinable and, then, say that's not a contradiction.
I guess you missed the part about "that's how the language is used." Yes, you can say that a concept is contradictory. That's what 2 is saying above.

No. Limitless, undivided being is meaningless, and incoherent.
Not at all. The Universe (or all of existence) will be a limitless undivided whole once it reaches the Omega State.
So, does limitless mean undefined and without meaning?
By "limitless" it is meant that there are no things that exist (physically) that aren't part of the Universe.

Yet, they are limited by the parameters of the universe or physicality. Correct?


So, (A) could exist, in the absence of not-A?
Yes: Existence exists and Non-Existence does not exist.
If nonexistence does not exist, then, neither does existence.
That is completely false and circular reasoning. The existence of non-existence is a contradiction which is an impossibility and does not exist.

I never said it wasn't a contradiction; yet, I did say contradictions are very real. To say nonexistence does not exist is a contradiction, because it is a contradiction to predicate something that does not exist. To demonstrate, in the sentence, "Nonexistence does not exist.", the predicate does not exist defines the subject, nonexistence, in two ways; it tells us that which it does and that which it is. To say something isn't and, then, to say that which it does and that which it is, is a contradiction.


You can't define, that which does not exist; and, saying nonexistence is this, but it's not that is defining it.
Please stop equivocating physical existence with conceptual existence. I am only referring to physical reality.

Meaning, all that is, is (A); and, (A) alone exists?
Yes: ALL that IS, IS; ALL that IS NOT, IS NOT.
If something is nonexistence, you can't tell me that which it is and, then, tell me that's not a contradiction.
I didn't tell you it's not a contradiction; on the contrary, I told you that it is! I am saying that nonexistence itself IS a contradiction. The reason you cannot understand what I am telling you is that you keep equivocating physical existence with the conceptual.

...in other words, one gives meaning to the other.
Couldn't you just have said that? All I see here is that there are 2 concepts: one is a concept of something that exists and the other of something that does not. The concepts "need" each other but what they represent, do not.
If these things do not exist, then, what is it we are conceiving?
We are conceiving a contradiction and as you know, contradictions do not exist.
So, we're conceiving nonexistence, in other words, nothing. Correct?
Yes, but conceiving something doesn't make it exist (physically) nor does it even make it true.

How can you know that which you cannot conceive?


Existence (physical) is not contingent upon conception; in fact, it's the other way around. Just because you can conceive something does not mean anything other than that you can conceive it. It doesn't even mean the conception is coherent or even that it's true.

If physical existence is not contingent on your conception of it, then, how do you know it exists?


As you like to point out so much "If Not-A does not exist, then, neither does A" so does inconceivable exist? And if so, can you give me some examples?

That which is inconceivable exists, in as much as it has meaning and definition. You can't say that which something is and, then, say it isn't and, then, say that's not a contradiction.


It is important for you (like others it seems) to not equivocate between physical existence and conceptual existence. The first is a real physical thing the other is not; the first has limits (possible), the other does not (possible or impossible.)
So, considering the fact to define something means to limit something, conceptions are without definition, and meaning. Correct?
It's ONLY a fact that defining is a limit when it is within coherence, like in 1 above. It's not a limit when it is not within coherence, like in 2 above.

Defining means to limit period. You can't say you're doing something and, then, say you're not doing it and, then, say that's not a contradiction.


Also, existence (physical) is not predicated on conception but rather conception on existence.
Can you conceive that which is physical, without conceiving it?
Yes. The above reduces to "conceive-not-conceive" and I can conceive that contradiction just like any other. If you don't like the reduction, then substitute the original phrase and you will get the same answer.

Then, don't say contradictions don't exist.


Yes. Oneness and nothingness.
No, that's another meaningless contradiction. More of your silly metaphors.
A) One does not equal zero.
B) Oneness and Nothingness are 2 things, not one.
One does not exist, without the other.
Indeed it does because non-existence is a paradox and paradoxes do not exist in physical reality. Again, the concepts "existence" and "nonexistence" exist BUT only "existence" has expression in physical reality.

All thoughts are conceived.


My point exactly. Nothing makes sense, apart from contradiction.
There's no coherent point; you've said nothing...probably more silly metaphoric language that equates to sense = nonsense.
One does not exist, without the other.
Indeed one does; see above.

Truth does not make sense, apart from falsehood.
Yes it does: physical reality is the expression of truth without any falsehood. That we need the concept of falsehood to understand truth, is another matter altogether. Just realize that the Universe does not require such things.
We're not apart of the universe?
Yes, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You must be equivocating again between the physical and the conceptual. I thought I asked you to stop doing that? When I say Universe I mean "all of existence (physical.)" Please stop the equivocation, it's getting old.

So, you're apart of the universe but not that which you're thinking. Correct?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 6:54:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 3:29:25 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/5/2014 12:45:30 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/4/2014 11:47:01 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/4/2014 6:54:34 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
By real, I mean that which is.
That doesn't really say much. Is this "real" coherent or not?
It's coherent, in as much as it's coherent, to you.
How would you know what's coherent to me? I obviously meant objectively coherent.
I have no idea of that which is coherent, to you, or of that which is objectively coherent, to you.
This is untrue, otherwise communication between us would be impossible and we are clearly communicating.

So, does limitless mean undefined and without meaning?
By "limitless" it is meant that there are no things that exist (physically) that aren't part of the Universe.
Yet, they are limited by the parameters of the universe or physicality. Correct?
Conceptual limits, yes; physical limits, no.

So, (A) could exist, in the absence of not-A?
Yes: Existence exists and Non-Existence does not exist.
If nonexistence does not exist, then, neither does existence.
That is completely false and circular reasoning. The existence of non-existence is a contradiction which is an impossibility and does not exist.
I never said it wasn't a contradiction; yet, I did say contradictions are very real.
They are "conceptually real" not "physically real." I do not care about the "conceptually real" as there really isn't anything that's not conceptually real.

To say nonexistence does not exist is a contradiction, because it is a contradiction to predicate something that does not exist.
Nonexistence does not exist physically. This is not a contradiction.

To demonstrate, in the sentence, "Nonexistence does not exist.", the predicate does not exist defines the subject, nonexistence, in two ways; it tells us that which it does and that which it is.
It tells us that "nonexitence" (the concept) does not exist (physically.) At least this is what I mean by it.

To say something isn't and, then, to say that which it does and that which it is, is a contradiction.
You are implying that "Fantasy does not exist" is a contradiction when indeed it is not. Fantasies are not real and do not exist other than as concepts. Nonexistence is not real and does not exist other than as concept.

So, we're conceiving nonexistence, in other words, nothing. Correct?
Yes, but conceiving something doesn't make it exist (physically) nor does it even make it true.
How can you know that which you cannot conceive?
And so "inconceivable" is a paradox, no?

Existence (physical) is not contingent upon conception; in fact, it's the other way around. Just because you can conceive something does not mean anything other than that you can conceive it. It doesn't even mean the conception is coherent or even that it's true.
If physical existence is not contingent on your conception of it, then, how do you know it exists?
Because I am greatly affected by it irrespective of my will and conception.

As you like to point out so much "If Not-A does not exist, then, neither does A" so does inconceivable exist? And if so, can you give me some examples?
That which is inconceivable exists, in as much as it has meaning and definition.
Are not meaning and definition conceptions? Are you not telling me that "inconceivable" = "conceivable"?

You can't say that which something is and, then, say it isn't and, then, say that's not a contradiction.
Yes, but so many of our conceptions are contradictions. This is why I prefer to stay in the realm of the physical.

It is important for you (like others it seems) to not equivocate between physical existence and conceptual existence. The first is a real physical thing the other is not; the first has limits (possible), the other does not (possible or impossible.)
So, considering the fact to define something means to limit something, conceptions are without definition, and meaning. Correct?
It's ONLY a fact that defining is a limit when it is within coherence, like in 1 above. It's not a limit when it is not within coherence, like in 2 above.
Defining means to limit period. You can't say you're doing something and, then, say you're not doing it and, then, say that's not a contradiction.
So something "unlimited" has no limit so no definition, right? Then how do we know what "unlimited" means? Are you not saying that unlimited is limited?

Also, existence (physical) is not predicated on conception but rather conception on existence.
Can you conceive that which is physical, without conceiving it?
Yes. The above reduces to "conceive-not-conceive" and I can conceive that contradiction just like any other. If you don't like the reduction, then substitute the original phrase and you will get the same answer.
Then, don't say contradictions don't exist.
I can, because it's true: contradictions don't exist physically.

Yes. Oneness and nothingness.
No, that's another meaningless contradiction. More of your silly metaphors.
A) One does not equal zero.
B) Oneness and Nothingness are 2 things, not one.
One does not exist, without the other.
Indeed it does because non-existence is a paradox and paradoxes do not exist in physical reality. Again, the concepts "existence" and "nonexistence" exist BUT only "existence" has expression in physical reality.
All thoughts are conceived.
And? That doesn't address my point above. The point is that only existence has expression in physical reality; contradictions do not exist in physical reality.

We're not apart of the universe?
Yes, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You must be equivocating again between the physical and the conceptual. I thought I asked you to stop doing that? When I say Universe I mean "all of existence (physical.)" Please stop the equivocation, it's getting old.
So, you're apart of the universe but not that which you're thinking. Correct?
Correct: fantasies are not a part of the physical universe.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 11:38:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 6:54:36 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/5/2014 3:29:25 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/5/2014 12:45:30 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/4/2014 11:47:01 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/4/2014 6:54:34 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
By real, I mean that which is.
That doesn't really say much. Is this "real" coherent or not?
It's coherent, in as much as it's coherent, to you.
How would you know what's coherent to me? I obviously meant objectively coherent.
I have no idea of that which is coherent, to you, or of that which is objectively coherent, to you.
This is untrue, otherwise communication between us would be impossible and we are clearly communicating.

If I have an idea of that which is coherent to you, it's my idea, not yours. You want to say it's my idea and, then, take it back and say it's yours.


So, does limitless mean undefined and without meaning?
By "limitless" it is meant that there are no things that exist (physically) that aren't part of the Universe.
Yet, they are limited by the parameters of the universe or physicality. Correct?
Conceptual limits, yes; physical limits, no.

So, (A) could exist, in the absence of not-A?
Yes: Existence exists and Non-Existence does not exist.
If nonexistence does not exist, then, neither does existence.
That is completely false and circular reasoning. The existence of non-existence is a contradiction which is an impossibility and does not exist.
I never said it wasn't a contradiction; yet, I did say contradictions are very real.
They are "conceptually real" not "physically real." I do not care about the "conceptually real" as there really isn't anything that's not conceptually real.

So, being there's nothing that's not conceptually real, is it safe to assume there is nothing that is physically real or is that which is conceptually real physically real, also?


To say nonexistence does not exist is a contradiction, because it is a contradiction to predicate something that does not exist.
Nonexistence does not exist physically. This is not a contradiction.

To demonstrate, in the sentence, "Nonexistence does not exist.", the predicate does not exist defines the subject, nonexistence, in two ways; it tells us that which it does and that which it is.
It tells us that "nonexitence" (the concept) does not exist (physically.) At least this is what I mean by it.

Since all things are conceptually real, how do you know the difference?


To say something isn't and, then, to say that which it does and that which it is, is a contradiction.
You are implying that "Fantasy does not exist" is a contradiction when indeed it is not. Fantasies are not real and do not exist other than as concepts. Nonexistence is not real and does not exist other than as concept.

Since all things are conceptually real, how do you know the difference?


So, we're conceiving nonexistence, in other words, nothing. Correct?
Yes, but conceiving something doesn't make it exist (physically) nor does it even make it true.
How can you know that which you cannot conceive?
And so "inconceivable" is a paradox, no?

Yes.


Existence (physical) is not contingent upon conception; in fact, it's the other way around. Just because you can conceive something does not mean anything other than that you can conceive it. It doesn't even mean the conception is coherent or even that it's true.
If physical existence is not contingent on your conception of it, then, how do you know it exists?
Because I am greatly affected by it irrespective of my will and conception.

But, I thought you said all things were conceptually real.


As you like to point out so much "If Not-A does not exist, then, neither does A" so does inconceivable exist? And if so, can you give me some examples?
That which is inconceivable exists, in as much as it has meaning and definition.
Are not meaning and definition conceptions? Are you not telling me that "inconceivable" = "conceivable"?

Yes.


You can't say that which something is and, then, say it isn't and, then, say that's not a contradiction.
Yes, but so many of our conceptions are contradictions. This is why I prefer to stay in the realm of the physical.

And, since all things, as you said, are conceptually real, I guess there's no difference. Correct?


It is important for you (like others it seems) to not equivocate between physical existence and conceptual existence. The first is a real physical thing the other is not; the first has limits (possible), the other does not (possible or impossible.)
So, considering the fact to define something means to limit something, conceptions are without definition, and meaning. Correct?
It's ONLY a fact that defining is a limit when it is within coherence, like in 1 above. It's not a limit when it is not within coherence, like in 2 above.
Defining means to limit period. You can't say you're doing something and, then, say you're not doing it and, then, say that's not a contradiction.
So something "unlimited" has no limit so no definition, right? Then how do we know what "unlimited" means? Are you not saying that unlimited is limited?

That's precisely that which I'm saying; unlimited is limited; contradictions do exist.


Also, existence (physical) is not predicated on conception but rather conception on existence.
Can you conceive that which is physical, without conceiving it?
Yes. The above reduces to "conceive-not-conceive" and I can conceive that contradiction just like any other. If you don't like the reduction, then substitute the original phrase and you will get the same answer.
Then, don't say contradictions don't exist.
I can, because it's true: contradictions don't exist physically.

Since all things are conceptually real, how do you know the difference?


Yes. Oneness and nothingness.
No, that's another meaningless contradiction. More of your silly metaphors.
A) One does not equal zero.
B) Oneness and Nothingness are 2 things, not one.
One does not exist, without the other.
Indeed it does because non-existence is a paradox and paradoxes do not exist in physical reality. Again, the concepts "existence" and "nonexistence" exist BUT only "existence" has expression in physical reality.
All thoughts are conceived.
And? That doesn't address my point above. The point is that only existence has expression in physical reality; contradictions do not exist in physical reality.

So, now, are you saying just the opposite, of that which you said? Only that which is physical is real, and contradictions, being conceptions, are not real?


We're not apart of the universe?
Yes, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You must be equivocating again between the physical and the conceptual. I thought I asked you to stop doing that? When I say Universe I mean "all of existence (physical.)" Please stop the equivocation, it's getting old.
So, you're apart of the universe but not that which you're thinking. Correct?
Correct: fantasies are not a part of the physical universe.

Since all things are conceptually real, how do you know the difference?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 6:19:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 11:38:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/9/2014 6:54:36 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
I have no idea of that which is coherent, to you, or of that which is objectively coherent, to you.
This is untrue, otherwise communication between us would be impossible and we are clearly communicating.
If I have an idea of that which is coherent to you, it's my idea, not yours. You want to say it's my idea and, then, take it back and say it's yours.
Unless you're developing new axioms and rules to reason, this is simply a moot point. The fact that 2+2 is coherent is irrespective of me or you.

They are "conceptually real" not "physically real." I do not care about the "conceptually real" as there really isn't anything that's not conceptually real.
So, being there's nothing that's not conceptually real, is it safe to assume there is nothing that is physically real or is that which is conceptually real physically real, also?
I have no idea what you are trying to say. The "rules" for concept are not the same as the "rules" for the corporeal.

To demonstrate, in the sentence, "Nonexistence does not exist.", the predicate does not exist defines the subject, nonexistence, in two ways; it tells us that which it does and that which it is.
It tells us that "nonexistence" (the concept) does not exist (physically.) At least this is what I mean by it.
Since all things are conceptually real, how do you know the difference?
It can be the difference between the imagined and observed, for example.

To say something isn't and, then, to say that which it does and that which it is, is a contradiction.
You are implying that "Fantasy does not exist" is a contradiction when indeed it is not. Fantasies are not real and do not exist other than as concepts. Nonexistence is not real and does not exist other than as concept.
Since all things are conceptually real, how do you know the difference?
See above. Not 100% sure exactly what you're asking here. Are you referring to the difference between "inside one's head" and "outside one's head"?

So, we're conceiving nonexistence, in other words, nothing. Correct?
Yes, but conceiving something doesn't make it exist (physically) nor does it even make it true.
How can you know that which you cannot conceive?
And so "inconceivable" is a paradox, no?
Yes.
And so it is not coherent.

Existence (physical) is not contingent upon conception; in fact, it's the other way around. Just because you can conceive something does not mean anything other than that you can conceive it. It doesn't even mean the conception is coherent or even that it's true.
If physical existence is not contingent on your conception of it, then, how do you know it exists?
Because I am greatly affected by it irrespective of my will and conception.
But, I thought you said all things were conceptually real.
Actually, it is yourself that's actually saying, or at the very least, implying that; I was just pointing it out. Regardless, what does "all things were conceptually real" have to do with my answer to your question?

As you like to point out so much "If Not-A does not exist, then, neither does A" so does inconceivable exist? And if so, can you give me some examples?
That which is inconceivable exists, in as much as it has meaning and definition.
Are not meaning and definition conceptions? Are you not telling me that "inconceivable" = "conceivable"?
Yes.
And so it is not coherent; it's not different than a square-circle or any other such nonsense.

You can't say that which something is and, then, say it isn't and, then, say that's not a contradiction.
Yes, but so many of our conceptions are contradictions. This is why I prefer to stay in the realm of the physical.
And, since all things, as you said, are conceptually real, I guess there's no difference. Correct?
No differences between what, the conceptual and the corporeal? If so, I think it rather obvious that there's a difference.

Defining means to limit period. You can't say you're doing something and, then, say you're not doing it and, then, say that's not a contradiction.
So something "unlimited" has no limit so no definition, right? Then how do we know what "unlimited" means? Are you not saying that unlimited is limited?
That's precisely that which I'm saying; unlimited is limited; contradictions do exist.
So you are saying unlimited is also a contradiction; but you are also saying that it is not. You are saying that it is defined and you are also saying that it is not. This is incoherent and meaningless because in the end, you're not saying anything at all. You keep saying that contradictions exist, to which I say "yes" BUT only in concept and NOT in physical reality.

Then, don't say contradictions don't exist.
I can, because it's true: contradictions don't exist physically.
Since all things are conceptually real, how do you know the difference?
You keep asking this but I am not sure what you're getting at? Since all things conceptual are conceptually real, how do I know the difference between what? I seriously hope it's not between the conceptual and the corporeal because I already answered that.

All thoughts are conceived.
And? That doesn't address my point above. The point is that only existence has expression in physical reality; contradictions do not exist in physical reality.
So, now, are you saying just the opposite, of that which you said?
No, not all. Perhaps you misunderstood. Let me see if I can clarify:

Conceptual Reality: all things here are real.

Physical Reality: only coherent things are real.

Only that which is physical is real, and contradictions, being conceptions, are not real?
Yes.

We're not apart of the universe?
Yes, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You must be equivocating again between the physical and the conceptual. I thought I asked you to stop doing that? When I say Universe I mean "all of existence (physical.)" Please stop the equivocation, it's getting old.
So, you're apart of the universe but not that which you're thinking. Correct?
Correct: fantasies are not a part of the physical universe.
Since all things are conceptually real, how do you know the difference?
I have already answered that question.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 12:04:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 6:19:38 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Unless you're developing new axioms and rules to reason, this is simply a moot point. The fact that 2+2 is coherent is irrespective of me or you.

If that were true, then, why even mention it?

I have no idea what you are trying to say. The "rules" for concept are not the same as the "rules" for the corporeal.

I've studied medicine, for nearly ten years, and not once have I read or heard the physiological mechanisms for that which is neurological (as in ideation) or any other systems of the body were not maintained biologically. You're drawing a distinction, in which science does not.

It can be the difference between the imagined and observed, for example.

Are you under the impression sensory perceptions are not products of neurochemical pathways? Do you believe that which is observed is somehow transplanted into cognition, bypassing the functionality of the cerebral organ, itself? Ideation, whether the end product of sensory perceptions or merely conceptions, is just that, ideation, bioelectrical charges, in the brain, forming synapses which in turn form neurological complexes. In other words, there is no difference, between the image of a book in your head and the image of a book on a bookshelf; both images are images in your head, or they wouldn't be and you would have no knowledge of them.

See above. Not 100% sure exactly what you're asking here. Are you referring to the difference between "inside one's head" and "outside one's head"?

No. Because, only the things you have knowledge of are inside your head.

And so it is not coherent.

Because I am greatly affected by it irrespective of my will and conception.
But, I thought you said all things were conceptually real.
Actually, it is yourself that's actually saying, or at the very least, implying that; I was just pointing it out. Regardless, what does "all things were conceptually real" have to do with my answer to your question?

No. I believe this is your quote, not mine: "...there really isn't anything that's not conceptually real." Yet, now, you're saying it's irrespective of conception. How can it, or anything else, for that matter, be irrespective of conception, if all things are conceptually real?


As you like to point out so much "If Not-A does not exist, then, neither does A" so does inconceivable exist? And if so, can you give me some examples?
That which is inconceivable exists, in as much as it has meaning and definition.
Are not meaning and definition conceptions? Are you not telling me that "inconceivable" = "conceivable"?
Yes.
And so it is not coherent; it's not different than a square-circle or any other such nonsense.

You can't say that which something is and, then, say it isn't and, then, say that's not a contradiction.
Yes, but so many of our conceptions are contradictions. This is why I prefer to stay in the realm of the physical.
And, since all things, as you said, are conceptually real, I guess there's no difference. Correct?
No differences between what, the conceptual and the corporeal? If so, I think it rather obvious that there's a difference.

Defining means to limit period. You can't say you're doing something and, then, say you're not doing it and, then, say that's not a contradiction.
So something "unlimited" has no limit so no definition, right? Then how do we know what "unlimited" means? Are you not saying that unlimited is limited?
That's precisely that which I'm saying; unlimited is limited; contradictions do exist.
So you are saying unlimited is also a contradiction; but you are also saying that it is not. You are saying that it is defined and you are also saying that it is not. This is incoherent and meaningless because in the end, you're not saying anything at all. You keep saying that contradictions exist, to which I say "yes" BUT only in concept and NOT in physical reality.

Then, don't say contradictions don't exist.
I can, because it's true: contradictions don't exist physically.
Since all things are conceptually real, how do you know the difference?
You keep asking this but I am not sure what you're getting at? Since all things conceptual are conceptually real, how do I know the difference between what? I seriously hope it's not between the conceptual and the corporeal because I already answered that.

All thoughts are conceived.
And? That doesn't address my point above. The point is that only existence has expression in physical reality; contradictions do not exist in physical reality.
So, now, are you saying just the opposite, of that which you said?
No, not all. Perhaps you misunderstood. Let me see if I can clarify:

Conceptual Reality: all things here are real.

Physical Reality: only coherent things are real.

No. This is your quote: "...there really isn't anything that's not conceptually real."


Only that which is physical is real, and contradictions, being conceptions, are not real?
Yes.

One breath gives, and the other takes away. "Conceptual Reality: all things here are real."



We're not apart of the universe?
Yes, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You must be equivocating again between the physical and the conceptual. I thought I asked you to stop doing that? When I say Universe I mean "all of existence (physical.)" Please stop the equivocation, it's getting old.
So, you're apart of the universe but not that which you're thinking. Correct?
Correct: fantasies are not a part of the physical universe.
Since all things are conceptually real, how do you know the difference?
I have already answered that question.