Can you prove there is something rather than nothing?Imagine you have a real Universe with humans inside it, and a non-existent Universe with humans inside it. How could they tell the difference?
>>17084022>and a non-existent Universe with humans inside itWhat
>>17084022assume there is nothing. that would make OPs sexuality non existant. i observe OP is a faggot therefore something exists
>>17084022Nothing is something, it is the smallest possible amount of anything and everything, so rather than is a misnomer on your part.>a non-existent Universe with humans inside it. You mean non-existent humans or humans not existing inside it or you just don't understand your own logic about a non-existent universe?
>>17084026true lol
>>17084022Nothing exists as a point/range between somethings. Nothing means nothing without a something to relate to
>>17084703>Nothing is somethingwrong. nothing is the absence of something. you must have something to define nothing as the absence of that something.thus even speaking about nothing implies something can exist, at the very least. still non-existing universe is nonsense. you can talk about it as a possibility doe. a potentially existing universe that doens't yet exist
>>17084022You can't. Mind is not material, and the distinction is definitionally that one IS and one IS THE SYMBOLOGY of what is. And since meaning is symbolic,then by definition it is irrelevant whether the universe exists.
>>17086175>nothing is the absence of somethingNo, nothing is the thing that remains when every thing else is removed, x-x=0.>you must have something to define nothing as the absence of that something.Nothing is something and 0-0=0 because removing nothing from nothing still leaves you with nothing.>thus even speaking about nothing implies something can existNothing is something and everything can be reduced to nothing, I already showed nothing and something both imply each other.>non-existing universe is nonsenseThat isn't the nonsense part, the nonsense part is the logical explosion that comes from saying that humans exist by way of the nonexistence of their universe.
>>17086177>Mind is not materialBecause time is not material and mind is a metric associated with a material body over time, so mind is just as immaterial as other time dependent physical measurements like speed and acceleration and energy.
>>17086180>>nothing is the absence of something>No, nothing is the thing that remains when every thing else is removed, x-x=0.are you perhaps retarded? you repeated what I said>Nothing is something and 0-0=0 because removing nothing from nothing still leaves you with nothing.no, nothing is the absence of something>pronoun>No thing; not anything. thus, the absence of thing. it's defined in relation something. it's in the fucking word itself: no-thing. THING. no THING. absence of thing. of some thing. of something. >Nothing is something and everything can be reduced to nothing, I already showed nothing and something both imply each other.no, you are just having a stroke and keep repeating what you imagined is true, for some reason>That isn't the nonsense part, the nonsense part is the logical explosion that comes from saying that humans exist by way of the nonexistence of their universe.yes you are right, I didn't properly express the thought, but indeed that's the nonsense bit.
>>17086187>you repeated what I saidIts not, though since 0=x-x, you don't have to define x first and you still have something when you remove x from x, you have nothing, which can be used to construct another unit since 0!=1 and 0^0=1.>the absence of thingNo, thus the thing that remains when all else is removed.>thus, the absence of thingNo, the absent thing, the thing that marks the absence of any other thing.>noYes, if x-x=0 for all x, what exactly can't be reduced to nothing?>imaginedNo, I didn't imaging or invent any of these logical connections who math I am trying to help you understand, they existed before either of us were even born.
>>17086197>keeps repeating fantasy story like a broken droneagain, the formal definition of nothing is the absence of something. you can redefine the meaning in your imaginary world tho. also do not forget to take your meds.
>>17086203>the formal definition of nothing is the absence of something.That is one of several dictionary definitions, not the formal mathematical definition represented by 0 and other equivalents like {0}.Also if your "formal definition" defines the thing you are describing as the absence of itself, you have a logically explosive definition, simply by defining nothing, it must not be absent of itself via the law of identity, and if it is not absent of itself, it is a thing, the very thing you are defining, the thing that exists when everything else is removed from it even though nothing still exists alongside everything else all the time, even when not explicitly state, since x+0=x.I get that it is hard to understand since 0 is specially defined and is unlike every other thing that is a multiple of some other base unity.
>>17086207>not the formal mathematical definition represented by 0 and other equivalents like {0}.mathematics is not reality. it simply describes reality at times. just because you can construct a mathematical structure doesn't mean you must find it in reality.>since x+0=x.you again conflate reality with math, for some reason. I do not know why you keep making this mistake. reality doesn't describe mathematics, it's the other way around, and mathematics just rarely describes reality.>not the formal mathematical definitionthere is no formal mathematical definition of nothing. it's always in relation to something. even an empty set requires the set as a concept. and the fact that it can also be not empty. thus nothing makes sense in relation to something. it doesn't exist on its own.and again, simply repeating it and insisting it's real doesn't make it real. you cannot argue for it existing in the absence of everything, it makes no sense.it's like arguing for something that happens in time, outside of time. it's pure nonsense. it's not just wrong, it's stupid, it's a category error. it doesn't even apply
>>17086210>mathematics is not reality. it simply describes reality at times.Same with words, there is no point to any of this if you just outright dismiss any possible way of proving anything after you lose your argument.>you again conflate reality with math, for some reason. And you conflating the word reality with anything actually useful while cherry picking the definition of reality that fits your argument is any different how other than words are more informal and irrational while math has set logical definitions in place?>there is no formal mathematical definition of nothing0 is the formal mathematical element that defines mathematical nothingness.> it's always in relation to somethingNo, its identity is 0, the law of identity says 0=0, so it need only be in relation to itself and can be exclusively used to construct any other value as I have already pointed out 0^0=1=x/x.>it doesn't exist on its own.Then it can't be what you said since it can't be the absence of everything since you now say it can't even exist if everything else is absent.>it's like arguing for something that happens in time, outside of timeSo then by your logic, is t=0 outside of time, the complete absence of time or is it the shortest, smallest possible time, the origin point of time?
>>17086216>Same with wordsno, words describe reality. people cam up with the word to describe the absence of something.we are using words, to talk about nothing, which is the absence of something. look at OP's post.>0 is the formal mathematical element that defines mathematical nothingness.but matehmatical elements are not reality. you are using concepts from Lord of the Rings and somehow expect them to hold up in reality, for some fucking reason. why do you keep doing this? >the law of identity says 0=0I cannot give a singular fuck about your mathematical lows lmao, they mean nothing to reality, your "laws". they only make sense in your framework.>Then it can't be what you said since it can't be the absence of everything since you now say it can't even exist if everything else is absent.yes it cannot exist on its own, it represents the absence of something. it can only be used as long as anything exists. the concept has no place to exist with nothing existing.all of the concepts we talk about exist in our minds and encoded in matter as writings or software or sounds or images. they need SOMETHING to exist, as concepts. human brains process and understand them, and matter encodes them. with no particles in this universe the concept of nothing is meaningless. there is nothing for it to mean something to, there is nothing holding the concept, there is no concept.>So then by your logic, is t=0 outside of time, the complete absence of time or is it the shortest, smallest possible time, the origin point of time?quite funny you mentioned time, since time is the measure of change, for ... things. so you cannot have time without ... things, changing. there would be no measure of change without something changing
>>17086222>no, words describe reality.Which is what you said math does, simply describes reality.>matehmatical elements are not realityNeither are words, they are both just descriptions, but math descriptions follow clear logical rules while words are fickle often with contradicting interpretations.>concepts from Lord of the Rings There are far more words in Lord of the Rings than equations, can you even cite a mathematical equation explicitly present in Lord of the Rings while the title itself is entirely composed of words?>I cannot give a singular fuckI can tell, I already pointed out this entire discussion is completely pointless if your only motivation is to cherry pick descriptions that reinforce your conclusion while casting out all the logically sound definitions that are actually based on formal measurable mathematical language.>it can only be used as long as anything existsSo if there is nothing, then nothing can't exist?This is the description you find to be most logical and somehow more than just a description, but reality itself?>there is no conceptThen why do you think your subjective linguistic interpretation of the concept of nothing is somehow superior to the objective mathematical measurement of nothing, if your understanding of the concept has to erase the concept entirely to conceptualize it?>quite funnyNot as funny as you completely dodging the actual questions so you can rant about how there somehow has to be something else between t=0 and t=0 even though, mathematically, there is not.>so you cannot have time without ... thingsYou can't possibly verify that claim since you can't measure without things because things are necessary for measurement and it seems that your problem is that you now think nothingness is impossible (rather than having some working definition that doesn't match the mathematical one, but somehow still matches "reality") even though the math disagrees and depends on nothing as an origin point.
>>17086247>Neither are words, they are both just descriptions, but math descriptions follow clear logical rules while words are fickle often with contradicting interpretations.but words like "nothing" are by design describing reality. mathematics do not do that. some mathematics describe reality, to some degree. with some roundings in the rare cases they actually do describe reality.they are not the same thing, at all.nothing is the absence of something, and makes no sense without something, because it has no platform, it has nothing to stand on, there is nothing conceiving of it, it's pure logical nonsense.>So if there is nothing, then nothing can't exist?yes, we can only talk about the concept because we exist. if we don't, the nothing concept makes no sense.we use the word to describe lack of something in this environment. no apples in this space, in your fridge etc. we know apples, thus we know lack of apples.but nothing by itself cannot stand, it has no reference. you cannot speak of anything outside of our universe, it's pure nonsense. I mean it logically, it's pure logical nonsense. you cannot do that, it's not valid. no reason to expect it to be valid, or to hold up. you can't go willy nilly expand concepts from inside our universe, to outside of it, whatever the fuck that even means anyway. you can't just blurt out brain rot x+0=x and expect it to mean something, that's just retarded. the only place that makes sense is in a mathematical framework. and that framwork happens to sometimes describe bits of our reality.>you now think nothingness is impossibleno, I am saying it's pure nonsense. it's a concept from inside our universe. time as well btw.>You can't possibly verify that claimyes I can. scientifically time is defined as the measure of change, full stop. if there is no change, there is no measure of it, thus there is no time, it logically follows. I really do not understand why you are having such a hard time with this. it's rather banal.
>>17086286>mathematics do not do that.They do, they specifically describe the parts of reality dealing with measurable value which intersects with the qualitative description of nothing since it is a description of quantitative value.>nothing is the absence of something, and makes no sense without something,No, this statement makes no sense, you explicitly saying that the thing you are trying to define doesn't make sense, you can't define it as the absence of other things, then say it can't exist if there is absence of other things.>the nothing concept makes no sense.I agree and have been trying to explain, your concept makes no sense given the only way for your interpretation of nothing to exist is if it doesn't exist.>nothing by itself cannot standBut that is exactly what nothing is, only itself, only nothing and nothing else 0+0=0.>no, I am saying it's pure nonsenseSo your interpretation is better than the useful mathematical interpretation because yours in nonsense while mine is mathematically provable and useful for constructing the entire realm of measurable values?>it's a concept from inside our universeMake up your mind, is it actually inside our universe or is it complete nonsense that can't possibly makes sense to those in the universe?>there is no measure of it, thus there is no timeSo all you have to do to destroy space is to burn all the rulers since time is eradicated if you don't measure it?>I really do not understand why you are having such a hard time with thisSo you keep calling the thing nonsense, but you don't understand why it doesn't make sense?
>>17084022>Can you prove something exists in my thread that doesn't exist to my brain that doesn't exist? Nigga what
>>17086305If your brain couldn't think of nothing, then it couldn't think of anything new because it would already be thinking of everything else which would make you brain dead since your brain wouldn't be able to process new sensory information and would just be trapped in its own memories of sensation.
