How many 'truths' are there?...

Philosophical, mathematical and computational logic, linguistics, formal argument, game theory, fallacies, paradoxes, puzzles and other related issues.

Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby Scott Mayers on November 15th, 2016, 1:30 am 

BadgerJelly » November 15th, 2016, 12:05 am wrote:Scott -

"Origin" meaning what? How the origin of logic differ from the origin of science?

What is "absolute nothing"?

I am fearful that you've bounded ahead without considering what these terms mean in your expression and how they are meant to everyone else. Sadly this leaves you with the task of writing a whole essay to explicate one word and then you are at the mercy of analogies and metaphors to frame the meaning well enough for you to proceed forwards. It is a very strenuous task on both the readers part and the writers part.

"Origin" refers to what could 'pre-exist' a priori. For logic as well as reality (physics), we must begin with nothing.

As to the "absolute" part, I'm meaning to the strictest meaning of "nothing" prior to ANYTHING. So prior to time, space, matter, energy, ....totality all together, you cannot begin with a 'some' nor an 'infinite' because these BEG 'nothing' as coexisting necessarily.

In contrast, beginning in "nothing" ABSOLUTELY, reality CAN begin in this without a coexisting something or everything. And this is because to an "absolute" condition of being nothing, not even LAWS exist there and so while it 'appears' (or feels emotionally uncomfortable) to think that we must have some 'cause' in at least a something (ONE) or everything (INFINITY), only an absolute nothing can allow this.

When you begin in any other 'number' or truths about totality, they necessitate "consistency" (sameness). But for anything to be the 'same' requires contrasting it with what it is not. So "inconsistency" (difference) must coexist to define what even "inconsistency" is.

Where absolute nothing exists, this is COMPLETE, in logical terms because it originates in "inconsistency" with respect to ourselves. Because we begin experiencing this thought experiment biased to KNOW that something exists, what 'differs' to that bias is "inconsistent" to the extreme.

In logic, the word "contingency" is the state of being a mix of "consistency" and "inconsistency", where at least some of BOTH must coexist. By Godel, the any complex system of reasoning (he used just math but this is generalized necessarily to logic and reality), can never exhaust (or answer) all 'truths'. As such, only one ORIGINATING in "inconsistency", as a meta-logical foundation, must be true and complete.


[This was assumed by many to just 'prove' that you cannot begin in first principles logically to describe all of reality. (A goal most prominently tried by those like Russell and Whitehead). In physics, the debate regarding QM's Copenhagen interpretation, also relates because it abandons logic as a foundation but keeps it only as a 'tool'. Rather, it treats science as a form of mere 'observational' organ that tends to lose logical ground in its explanation capacity because many inappropriately think that SEEING is equivalent to the INTERPRETATION given by the observer about what they see. If one treats it this way though, then what is seen is treated as a convention of the authorities as 'democratic'. ]
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby BadgerJelly on November 15th, 2016, 3:11 am 

Physics doesn't begin woth nothing and logic doesn't begin with nothing either. Also "pre-exist" is almost like saying colour, in that it doesn't make any direct lingual sense.

Priot to time? Again, nonsense. This is not a slight at what you may be trying to convey only me showing that such a term is inherantly "meaningless".

I am giving rhe the benefit of doubt for now. Although I have to admit I am starting to lose faith in what you are saying. This is because you appear to be framing the human perspective from a position that does not exist for the human perspective. For now I am just assuming you're using bad analogies (from my view) rather than misapplication.

We are creatures that have the "habit" of viewing existence as causally related. The very idea of a "prior to" time needs to be framed as our personal perspective of time or as physical time (through measurement and physics). If you are talking about the latter then you've made an error in my eyes ... yet if your view emcompasses all the possible paths from the prior "personal perspective" then there is a thread leading to the latter "physical" view of time through measurements. If this has nothing to do with what you are talking about then I am inclined to disagree with your approach.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby DragonFly on November 15th, 2016, 3:33 pm 

It is interesting to attempt a nullification of existence, as if the possibility of a lack of anything still had to have its say somehow, that is, to show that Totality sums to zero, or nearly so, although never being able to do so in practice by its going away completely.

We observe a balance of polarity of charge, matter and antimatter, a weak and a strong nuclear force (changeability vs.stability), gravity’s negative potential energy balancing the positive kinetic energy of stuff, and fields making particles and particles making fields.

So, there could be a balance of opposites, which might sum to zero.

The Cosmos in its external totality would be neutral and symmetric, to sum to nonexistence, whereas its internal composition would be polar and asymmetric, in order to have existence within nonexistence.

My list of balances so far:

1. The positive kinetic energy of stuff vs the negative potential energy of gravity.

2. Positive vs negative polarity of electric charge.

3. Matter vs antimatter.

4. Everything vs nothing, each holding the same information content (none).

5. Fields of space vs particles in space, fields making particles and particles making fields.

6. The largest vs the smallest, with our finite reality at the mid-point.

7. The eternal future vs the eternal past, with our ‘now’ at the mid-point.

8. The strong nuclear force vs the weak nuclear force, the strong for stability, the weak for changeability.

9. Light making matter vs matter making light, each requiring the other to be previous.

10. Stellar ignition requires previous star material.

11. Electric force transforming into magnetic force into electric force, etc., as a self-regenerating wave.

12. ‘Now’ becoming ‘past’ and transforming into ‘future’ via movement of matter through space.

13. Standing waves going both inward and outward at the same time, if they do.

14. Compression to nothing vs dispersion to nothing.

15. Positive vs negative curvatures of space, if there be such.

16. Virtual particles popping in and out of existence, always in pairs.

17. Two and only two stable charged matter particles in free space, the electron and the proton, and no uncharged matter particles. Only one stable energy particle in free space, the photon, neutral (or both positive and negative together), and no charged energy particles. A very curious symmetry overall!

18. Color wheel opposites.

19. Male/female.

20. Mass/energy transition.

21. Wave/particle transition.



97. General efficiency, such as only three primary colors making up all the rest.

98. All oppositional-transitional schemes joining in their generality, such as the 4 fundamental forces having the strong vs weak in opposition and the electric to magnetic in transition; being having space vs matter in opposition and past to future in transition.

99. On/off, here/there, up/down, 0/1, and more.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby Eclogite on November 15th, 2016, 4:02 pm 

There appear to be flaws in your list. Here is one: while matter and anti-matter may balance themselves qualitatively they do not do so quantitatively. That raises doubts about your thesis, which seems more poetry than philosophy.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby Scott Mayers on November 15th, 2016, 8:23 pm 

BadgerJelly » November 15th, 2016, 2:11 am wrote:Physics doesn't begin woth nothing and logic doesn't begin with nothing either. Also "pre-exist" is almost like saying colour, in that it doesn't make any direct lingual sense.

Priot to time? Again, nonsense. This is not a slight at what you may be trying to convey only me showing that such a term is inherantly "meaningless".

I am giving rhe the benefit of doubt for now. Although I have to admit I am starting to lose faith in what you are saying. This is because you appear to be framing the human perspective from a position that does not exist for the human perspective. For now I am just assuming you're using bad analogies (from my view) rather than misapplication.

We are creatures that have the "habit" of viewing existence as causally related. The very idea of a "prior to" time needs to be framed as our personal perspective of time or as physical time (through measurement and physics). If you are talking about the latter then you've made an error in my eyes ... yet if your view emcompasses all the possible paths from the prior "personal perspective" then there is a thread leading to the latter "physical" view of time through measurements. If this has nothing to do with what you are talking about then I am inclined to disagree with your approach.


"Nonsense"? So you are asserting that if you are unable to personally 'sense' X, X is certain not to exist, even though the nature of X is itself unable to be 'sensed' directly?

Perhaps you might compare this to someone's belief in a god or a unicorn, right? But these cannot do because they 'posit' a UNIQUE form of existence where "nothing" simply lacks ANY quality, including the 'lack of existence'.

You're thinking is likely on the lines of:

This sentence you are reading does not exist.

Can you confirm this or not?


"Meaningless"? Are you just arguing that you cannot see any use of the idea of "nothing"? Then you take the ancient's interpretation of the "ineffable" nature of using the zero to represent this. You are begging that this cannot be ALLOWED to be used in a meaningful way, as the zero has. It was resisted for being "blasphemous" to even speak of because what was "meaningless" was believed to act returning to anarchy and disorder.

You need to explain to me if you are simply tabooing this of yourself or are telling me that I can't prove this valid no matter what I could say. If there is NOTHING literally that I can present to prove to you that NOTHING exists, this is because it IS "nothing" which appropriately has this property. For the same reason, you cannot literally prove that you DIE because you'd need to be dead to literally qualify. Yet you would no longer be able to validate it or not. Thus it is 'meaningless' to actually prove to you DIRECTLY that some absolute nothing existed.

This leaves me only able to hope you infer this. Given ANY possible 'origin', is there anything more 'a priori' with justice than absolute nothing?

"Material Implication" is the apparent paradox that given Y, there is some X that justifies Y. The 'paradox' is just illusive in that many treat this to mean that 'any' meaning to X is valid. It only means that 'some' X caused Y.

Thus, what 'cause', given any interpretation, is more simplified than "absolute nothing"?

My argument is that IF THERE IS an "absolute" cause, this can only be "absolutely nothing".
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby Scott Mayers on November 15th, 2016, 8:29 pm 

Eclogite » November 15th, 2016, 3:02 pm wrote:There appear to be flaws in your list. Here is one: while matter and anti-matter may balance themselves qualitatively they do not do so quantitatively. That raises doubts about your thesis, which seems more poetry than philosophy.

I thought he was showing examples of opposites that cancel out regardless of 'quality'.

NOTE that while many non-numerical things you may believe are all that have 'quality', "quantity" is actually the most universal QUALITY belonging to everything and why it placed alongside the concept, not because it is LESS valid.

Who's "thesis" were you questioning, btw?
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby DragonFly on November 15th, 2016, 9:25 pm 

Eclogite » November 15th, 2016, 3:02 pm wrote:There appear to be flaws in your list. Here is one: while matter and anti-matter may balance themselves qualitatively they do not do so quantitatively. That raises doubts about your thesis, which seems more poetry than philosophy.


Yes, there are flaws, the main one being that the sum-things that are proposed to cancel out still had to have a way to come to be, which method is a something and thus not a nothing, but the oppositeness found in reality is curious enough in itself for us to draw attention to it.

Another flaw is that things don't seem to fully cancel, for example, after annihilation of particle pairs, energy results and remains in the form of photons. The photon may be neutral because it may contain a positive and negative portion somehow living in peace, such as that they are 180 degrees out of phase, but even if we go on to get these parts to cancel I think there would still be some excess left over, as whatever went into the making of the photon in the first place.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby BadgerJelly on November 16th, 2016, 12:21 am 

Scott -

If you think "prior to time" makes physical sense then you're mistaken. I made an error, I meant to say it is like talking about colourless colour. Such statemwnts are "meaningless" unless dressed out fully as an analogy of some kind or in some use outside of physics.

I am not the one under the spot light so address what I put forward rather than say I say something when I have said nothing. If you think it useful for me to answer obvious questions then you're playing a political game. Of course neither I nor anyone else thinks because they cannot personally sense something it means it does not exist. I would say that I must ne able to know of something in some way for it to be a "something".

I need to tell you what? What are you trying to "prove"? The existence of nothing? What are you talking about?

Also, "a priori" is generally considered to mean prior to experience not prior to existence. I do infer that before I was alive that there was physical time prior to me being alive. From a personal perspective on time I cannot obtain experience of "the beginning" for me as a human being.

From the way you are presenting the infoemation there is a disparity between your subjective view and measured objective reality. You seem to be flitting between objective and subjective. The absolute origin for me is me. Beyond me everything is essentially "inferred" to some extent or another. Any given "truth" is founded through causal experience and a "truth" outside of time, either personal or not, is logically impossible to capture within personal experience.

There are instances of abstraction that are not bound by temporal reasoning. The number 5 is always the exact same unchanging number 5 just as the word "and" is always the same "and". In this sense "nothing" is always the same "nothing". None of these terms have any meaning without physical application. An absolute is absolute because it is framed in a certain set of rules. 1+1=2 is mathematically absolutely true. 1 apple + 1 apple = a quantity of two said apple things. The difference is that "1" never changes but an "apple" does.

If you wish to know my general outlook read some of my threads. I am here to help you explain whatever it is you wish to explain and simply point out what I see as a difficulty. Nothing exists as a concept for me as it does for everyone. So does "big" and so does "yellow". And I can say "big yellow" exists, but that doesn't mean anything much to anyone unless I explain the purpose and meaning behind the term.

Just thought I'd in something regarding finitude and infinity. Our scientific approach is made directed towards an infinity whereas our simplistic worldly being is finite. Not sure how this would be of use to you regarding "nothing" but thought it worth a mention. Note absolute is only obtainable in finitude for us.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby BadgerJelly on November 16th, 2016, 2:16 am 

I should add this in reference to above ..

"But with the appearance of Greek philosophy and its first formulation, through consistent idealizatio, of the new sense of infinity, there is accomplished in this respect a thoroughgoing transformation which finally draws all finite ideas and with them all spiritual culture and its [concept of] mankind into its sphere. Hence there are, for us Europeans, many infinite ideas (if we may use this expression) which lie outside the philosophical-scientific sphere (infinite tasks, goals, confirmations, truths, "true values", "genuine goods," "absolutely" valid norms), but they owe their analogous character of infinity to the transformation of mankind through philosophy and its idealities. Scientific culture under the guidance of ideas of infinity means, then a revolutionization [Revolutionierung] of the whole culture, a revolution of the whole manner in which mankind creates culture. It means a revolutionization of [its] historicity, which is now the history of the cutting-off of finite mankind's development as it becomes mankind with i finite tasks."

Edmund Husserl, Crisis of European Sciences and Tranacendental Phenomology, Appendix I, The Vienna Lecture, p.279, translated by David Carr

So here I am asking you if you are also doing something similar. Meaning are you investigating the grounding of science and logical applications? Quite possible I am just seeing what I want to see in what you've presented.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby Eclogite on November 16th, 2016, 6:33 am 

Scott Mayers » Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:29 am wrote:
Eclogite » November 15th, 2016, 3:02 pm wrote:There appear to be flaws in your list. Here is one: while matter and anti-matter may balance themselves qualitatively they do not do so quantitatively. That raises doubts about your thesis, which seems more poetry than philosophy.

I thought he was showing examples of opposites that cancel out regardless of 'quality'.

NOTE that while many non-numerical things you may believe are all that have 'quality', "quantity" is actually the most universal QUALITY belonging to everything and why it placed alongside the concept, not because it is LESS valid.

Who's "thesis" were you questioning, btw?
His thesis. It appears distinct from yours.

I am not sure why you would suspect I believe that only non-numerical things have "quality". There are so many contrary examples it would, I think, be difficult for anyone to arrive at that conclusion. However, if we are talking about balance - as Dragonfly was - then it seems to me that the balance should be both quantitative and qualitative. That was the entirety of my thought on the matter.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby Scott Mayers on November 16th, 2016, 3:11 pm 

My intent in asking this was to first show (a) that ANY question of either science or logic requires understanding that these begin with NUMBER as a foundation, (b) that three concepts of number, "Nothing" ('0', zero), "Something" ('1' , at least one; any finite positive integer being a 'unit') and "Infinity" ('00', infinities in general), are ALL coexisting factors about reality that need to be understood above any mere anthropomorphic interpretation of reality, and (c) that because logic and science deal with ORIGINS as a foundation necessarily, ONLY the "nothing" concepts, both relative AND absolute, can be appropriately the WAY to understand both logic and science. It is the only concept universally valid as an 'origin'.

This needs to be understood if we are to actually unify theories of all science in general (...or, including logic, as I proposed about why we need to re-address science with logic as "natural philosophy").

The first problem of those embedded in scientific authority is to dismiss "nothing" as a reality other than as a device and instead to begin with our bias of existence as a "something". But to be appropriately accountable even as a scientist, the first part of being validly reasonable means that you must INFER that logic/math is NOT a mere 'tool' but IS itself an OBJECTIVE reality beyond ANY observation.

The 'absolute' part is about insisting that to reality the LAWS (of science OR logic) cannot be 'fixed' (or absolute) or some particular common set (a 'oneness' concept), nor is infinite as most falsely think LOGIC does.

To today's paradigms of reasoning anywhere, most treat "laws" as absolute as a set (a "oneness" conceptual bias) AND diminish logic to a secondary role because they also think that it can PROVE ANY number of "laws", (the "infinite" concept), when this too is false. We cannot unify science (nor politics, nor economics, nor.... ANY human concerns collectively) when we cannot learn to 'EMPTY THE CUP' of loaded biases before entering into the reasoning needed to UNIFY these us in sync with the reality around us.

I'll leave this POST as my "thesis" motive. I thought that I've proven above in context that an "absolute nothing(ness)" must be the origin PRIOR to even beginning to speak of "laws" whether these be to logic OR science. In logic, the "laws" are often of the major three: (Identity, Excluded Middle, and non-Contradiction). But these too are a part of science when we assume that reality is itself "consistent", to which the three laws of logic in essence expand upon. These MUST be first abandoned prior to arguing because these are "ASSUMED" because of our biases and why we must begin with "absolutely nothing", which defers to an "inconsistent" reality with respect to us.
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby BadgerJelly on November 16th, 2016, 3:36 pm 

Scott -

Can you see any similarity in what I quoted from Husserl? Maybe it is not so obvious to you taken out of the full written piece ... ?

It really does sound like you are trying to say something applicable to what Husserl was doing.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby Scott Mayers on November 16th, 2016, 4:02 pm 

BadgerJelly » November 16th, 2016, 2:36 pm wrote:Scott -

Can you see any similarity in what I quoted from Husserl? Maybe it is not so obvious to you taken out of the full written piece ... ?

It really does sound like you are trying to say something applicable to what Husserl was doing.

Husserl's quote as you wrote above is something I am unable to interpret without an investment into reading his own works and learn of HOW he speaks. I don't like referencing past efforts using THEIR words because they are not here to determine what they meant precisely.

If I share something he says, I will not commit to it as this could be some sort of rhetorical 'trap' to associate me wholesale with someone else's philosophy I might have zero relationship to. On its surface, the language of that quote is as burdening to me as some of you think regarding me of my own way of speaking here.

Would you agree that we must 'scientifically' observe that logic is the most OBJECTIVE reality that must be agreed upon before even assessing what we observe is valid or not?

In light of a positive answer to that, would you agree that we must then begin with reasoning from an absolute nothing as a starting point rather than any absolute something?

Can you see that when you begin with nothing absolutely, this is like taking the perspective of a universe (totality) that lacks a mind to begin with rather than assuming it is either some 'god' or some 'mind' to favor some specific 'laws' over others, as both the religious and scientific approach is being done today?
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby DragonFly on November 16th, 2016, 5:21 pm 

I propose that Totality must be relative/relational to but itself, given there can be no outside to it, and so there would be no One, no Zero, and no Infinite—and so we are bound within those.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby Scott Mayers on November 16th, 2016, 5:39 pm 

DragonFly » November 16th, 2016, 4:21 pm wrote:I propose that Totality must be relative/relational to but itself, given there can be no outside to it, and so there would be no One, no Zero, and no Infinite—and so we are bound within those.


Yes, this is how I also defined, "Totality". But that is just like a label to a 'box' in which we don't assert the box is what we are discussing, but to its contents. As such, the 'box' we can call "totality" or "Totality"(as a proper name) is the imaginary encapsulation of what is INSIDE it, not the container itself.

Then the first thing we can at least agree on is that 'whatever' is 'true' about what is inside "Totality" must be absolutely inclusive of everything we can even speculate upon it. The contents at this initial inspection should not by definition bias itself against WHAT is inside before hand. So you have to treat all that is 'true' AND 'false' about all reality as INSIDE that imaginary container.

Then, when we 'open' the box, we treat what is 'true' as the 'material content at issue' and what is 'false' is just the space external to that without defining or concerning ourselves with. You can't speak of what IS without distinguishing it from what it is NOT. As such, if you POINT (denote) some X, some non-X must be implicit and lies inside that box too.....because we defined no outside to that box we label, "Totality".

Then we inspect reality as those Chinese dolls with dolls inside of dolls to deduce what reality is with more precision. This thus means though that we count the space as substantially meaningful outside the internal 'boxes' if we come across them.
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby BadgerJelly on November 17th, 2016, 2:41 am 

Scott -

There is no "trap". I am just looking for common ground.

I don't see how we "observe" logic. Numberd are also unobservable, yet a number is unchanging. I am not sure what you mean by "absolute nothing". There is, in my mind, only the absolute idea of "nothing" not strictly speaking "absulutely nothing". The latter is a colloquial use of language. "Nothing" is a quantifier.

I have been looking at logic for sometime now. The issue I find is in mathematical logoc extending back into common parse. See reference to apples I made previously. We have mathematical truths that can be applied to nature and produce very consistent results from which we form models to interpret nature through our causal relation.

I don't think I can agree that reasoning starts from this or that. Such a thinf is wholly beyond my means of investigation. I can ironicalky use reason to establish some inferred positions. I can use the term "nothing" in a more creative light and agree with you by taking "nothing" as meaning the idea of a primal origin. The origin is located itself in the presentation of our causal nature. Time is a deeply tricky subject in regard to this.

The "truth" is always determined by the form and application of the language. In the language of math the truths are very pure because they are abstract and the "items" used (numbers) exist beyond the direct effect of time. Numbers never change. In the English language "truth" is determined by using terms with less delineation and that are, although essentially "abstract", are taken as symbilically actual in determining truths of reality. Here categories form the basis of logic in common language as well as how items are grammatically displayed.

You vaught my attention because the "nothing" has much in common with "epoche". In the sense that it is a "position" from which to start an investigation. The difference being the idea of "before" has no bearing in the epoche.

You find itninteresting to read Origins of Geometry by Husserl. You can find pdf online easily enough. MaybebI'll post some quotes frm there soon.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby Scott Mayers on November 17th, 2016, 4:59 am 

BadgerJelly » November 17th, 2016, 1:41 am wrote:Scott -

There is no "trap". I am just looking for common ground.

I understand this is possible too but don't want to accept some author I am not familiar with yet. (I may have already come across him and forgot.) I didn't follow what your quote said of his said but prefer to speak in my own terms rather than old ones.

My thinking is that we can argue from 'first principles' in logic, something that is more akin to Bertrand Russell's attempt in "Principia Mathematica" and to the intended goals of David Hilbert. I am certain that Husserl related too from his "Logical Investigations at that same time (turn of the 20th century). So if you can translate in your own words it might help instead.

I don't see how we "observe" logic. Numberd are also unobservable, yet a number is unchanging. I am not sure what you mean by "absolute nothing". There is, in my mind, only the absolute idea of "nothing" not strictly speaking "absulutely nothing". The latter is a colloquial use of language. "Nothing" is a quantifier.

"Logic" is the way we connect things as verbs are to connect the subject to objects in sentences. Nouns would be the static parts we put in such as subjects and objects. Both must be inferred and are also equally translated in terms of the other. The nouns are what many interpret are the domain of "science", though.

To me, seeing that they are just relative and essential functions of each other, they must be in perfect sync. A noun is the static representation of something we can explain 'finitely' (or pretended as such) and are what people think of as what 'matters' (and thus 'matter' as a relative meaning of the static things we can sense.)

Verbs or actions in general are OPEN and act as forms that need nouns to complete. The "predicate" is the receptive part of a sentence that contains both the verb AND a possible object. The predicate is incomplete as the verb itself is without being 'completed' by a subject. But when these are 'complete', they form sentences that can then be summarized in another noun-form that can be reintroduced into a new sentence to create more complex ones.

"Logic" then usually focuses on the 'form' but is actually as much about the parts, as nouns are too. But many think that the domain of "science" is limited to the inducing of the reality of the words and logic as the way they are connected. However, logic must as much be inferred "scientifically" as science is "logically" deduced in the way that subjects and predicates relate.

The concern with logic though is usually to pay attention only to form and not substance, where science is to attend to the substance (as input) to the forms, as the logical structure that draws novel conclusions or summaries of its content.

I treat assuming "nothing" like we are born to be 'absent' of opinion. Most still have a hard time understanding, for instance, what "atheism" is because they think we are born "knowing" a god (a something) and cannot fathom one thinking there is none by default. As such, to them, an "atheist" is one DENYING the reality of a god rather than "lacking a positive belief in a god". In this same way, we are biased if we assume a "something" as a priori versus a "nothing". My stance is to understand reality by not assuming something biased by our experience in it as a priori in the way others presume a "something" must be defaulted to. We must BE alive to question things of course. But if we are questioning nature, you can't presume nature to abide by needing us to question it in order for it to exist.

Note that "exist" is "ex-" (outside of), "-is(t)" (that which 'is'). We interpret reality by what is outside of us imposing reality upon us, not something from within. So the LEAST you can infer is the boundary from where you became FROM some state of relative non-existence, or "nothing". This, if you are fair to be 'scientific', must be most self-evident and means that we have more justice to interpret reality as a whole deriving from some similar state. If not, you have to have personal 'evidence' of BEING alive forever. You only LEARN about what a 'past' means later in life and infer that such a past existed but don't know it with more certainty than your prior LACK of knowing eternal non-existence.

Begin with an assumption of Nothing, represented by "0", our experience of being alive only at least asserts some "non-0" exists. So, even IF Totality originated as nothing, "0", for it to PERSIST ["per-" to each, "-sis(t)" remains the same], nothing must remain itself. But if it remains 'itself', it is either "consistent" or "inconsistent". It is BOTH. And while it may appear 'contradictory', to nothing itself, it doesn't care WHAT you think because it doesn't think. It's not a 'god' nor a law abiding factor. But this also means it CAN be free to be both. This makes two parts to totality: One that has (0 and not-0) and one that has not-(0 and not-0) [which is identical to (0 OR not-0).]

Just because we can't see what is contradictory about reality, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. OUR part of Totality is to the side that has the "law" that (0 OR not-0) [law of excluded middle]. THEN we can see that Contradiction in this 'side' of Totality is the motivating factor that forces resolution to it by again dividing into distinct 'places' to repair this state.

"not-0" = "1", by initial definition. From this you can determine reality based on what is initially abstract to what we are.

In math, Set theory uses this kind of approach to define how numbers originate. They use the "empty set" as "nothing" though.

I understand the discomfort. It was Bertrand Russell who actually first recognized the problem in his 'barber who shaves all men in town who can't shave themselves' paradox. [Same as the liars paradox.] Had he anticipated Godel, he may not have started his "Principia Mathematica". Godel proved that beginning with consistent logics with extensive depth to cover all 'truths', no such system could PROVE all things that are 'true' logically. As such, "consistent" logic, as in beginning with a "something", is never able to be complete. But this is NOT the case with beginning in ABSOLUTE nothing. This is because while "inconsistent", it is COMPLETE, as I tried to explain earlier.

The only hope to find closure (completeness) then, is to begin with absolute nothing. Instead of treating "contradiction" as a means to STOP in some argument, you can USE it to derive what to do. For instance, if you begin with 0, it leads to 1. But then (0 & 1) are 'true', a contradiction. So the solution is to have another solution, P that means (0 or 1) but in a perpendicular 'direction' (or dimension). This is just an example I won't go into here.
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby DragonFly on November 17th, 2016, 5:25 pm 

It may seem to be a paradox that there apparently isn't anything to make things out of; however, there are more than 10**76 particles in the universe and so it is not only possible but easy (two trillion galaxies, each with about one hundred billion stars).

The basic something, then, could be as Wheeler's "Law of no laws" notion.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby BadgerJelly on November 18th, 2016, 1:54 am 

If it is complete "nothing" it is removed from "something". Both are absolutes and operate within different systems. At leats with "something" I operate with a "thingness". No matter what you say you say through a register within language and from language we created logical form prior to language we can in effect talk about a "nothingness" in this respect.

I have a feeling you are more directed towards natural science than what concerns me.

I would add that people who believe in god think they were born believinf such and you are correct about the positive view. I would equate the thing with a belief in "nothingness" as existent. Also I do not look at reality as "out there" I am essentially more inclined to a phenomenological view. In such a way I can, but don't need to, view reality as dichotically external or internal. Such polarity can be bracketed out, then the problem is more about how to use "language" and to investigate how bracketing of polar ideas can unearth alternate perspectives. This can be used in what you are saying but I am unsure what you are bracketing out? It seems like you're trying to bracket out something to do with "thingness".
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby Scott Mayers on November 18th, 2016, 2:41 pm 

DragonFly » November 17th, 2016, 4:25 pm wrote:It may seem to be a paradox that there apparently isn't anything to make things out of; however, there are more than 10**76 particles in the universe and so it is not only possible but easy (two trillion galaxies, each with about one hundred billion stars).

The basic something, then, could be as Wheeler's "Law of no laws" notion.

Thanks for this. Maybe? When I google, "Wheeler's law of no laws" though, it only comes up with either general links to him without special mention of this directly OR is commenting (critical) ABOUT this. I will be looking at some of it and from the intro on one paper, it looks like what I'm referring to.

I'm 'in sync' with Max Tegmark's line of thinking on what is similar to this regarding the treatment of reality as "mathematical", a concept originally most emphasized in history as from those like the Pythagoreans. (minus the mystical magic beans! ;) )

Do you know direct sources of Wheeler's views?
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby DragonFly on November 18th, 2016, 6:17 pm 

Scott Mayers » November 18th, 2016, 1:41 pm wrote:Do you know direct sources of Wheeler's views?


No, not now, as I don't have them anymore, but I think he's trying to say that anything goes since there is no law to stop it. This is also in accord with my noting that what is Fundamental couldn't have any set direction put to it, so, perhaps, even everything goes.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby Scott Mayers on November 18th, 2016, 7:24 pm 

DragonFly » November 18th, 2016, 5:17 pm wrote:
Scott Mayers » November 18th, 2016, 1:41 pm wrote:Do you know direct sources of Wheeler's views?


No, not now, as I don't have them anymore, but I think he's trying to say that anything goes since there is no law to stop it. This is also in accord with my noting that what is Fundamental couldn't have any set direction put to it, so, perhaps, even everything goes.

Yes, I agree.

I thought of another analogy relating to other conversations recently.

I made the use of "raster" versus "vector" graphics to describe something about an approach to different thinking in science. If you are not familiar, "raster" graphics is a process of laying down data on a screen pixel by pixel from each one next to it. For instance, if the following data were printed in with '0' = black, and '1' = white,

a segment might look like this in describing its data:

00011111111110000

"Vector" graphics takes the FORMULA of the line as being a set of pixels with consistent '1's. As such, a vector-kind of description of the same data above might be 'compressed' as:

3(0), 10(1), 4(0)

There are many different ways this can be imagined to be formulated.

The WAY we tend to think is from 'top-down' most of the time. That is, we assume we begin WHERE we are without questioning it and try to seek patterns. The guessing often gets reduced to a 'vector' kind of explanation that become a 'theory' or 'logical rationale' of the form or pattern we are describing. In this way, the above 'compressed' vector is like how science today might do this. BUT the logic is itself relatively arbitrary because we could have used many different KINDS of compression formulations that are 'vector-like'.

In reality, the underlying logic belongs to the actual electronics that creates the pixels though. This you cannot infer top-down. For example, this is like trying to make sense of what the particular electronics does in your smart phone by using it. This is impossible to exactly determine without tearing it apart making it no longer functional.

A top-down approach would also be like learning the HTML markup language that gets used in general to determine what each machine language is underneath. This is impossible.

So you need to first USE the top-down approach only to learn about logic in general itself, not the particular form used called, HTML. Then you must START FROM scratch to see if you can logically reconstruct the logic that could be made into ALL machines as universally as possible. When done so, you determine how the raster graphic is made from pixel to pixel as tiny 'rules' based on some rules about touching pixels.

All in all, you must dump your assumptions back to zero once you've noticed some pattern to the logic itself, not the pattern of simply the end results you already begin from, such as images that make sense as a whole picture.

We need this to do this with science logically. Seek the logic of the logic and then begin with zero assumptions for the lowest level of logic going in.
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby Scott Mayers on November 24th, 2016, 10:00 am 

I need to update something relevant to this discussion that relates. I am cross referencing to the "PhilosophyNow" magazine's forum where I responded to a recent article about Hegel and his use of 'trinities'. It relates here as the

0, 1, and 00

and what is the followup part of introducing this that I began in another post there a while back asking the same question.

See http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20746&p=289478#p289478

They link you to their article and you can first read it for background. Then I posted an explanation regarding my own use of 'trinities' and the process of thinking by Hegel that also influence me years ago. It is relevant to understand what I think needs to be understood prior to following my theories in logic and physics.
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby DragonFly on November 28th, 2016, 3:31 pm 

Einstein as a near traffic fatality…

George Gamow told in his book, ‘My World Line’,
How he was conversing with Albert Einstein
While walking through Princeton in the 1940s.

Gamow casually mentioned that one of his colleagues
[Pascual Jordan] had pointed out to him that according
To Einstein’s equations a star could be created
Out of nothing at all, because [at point zero]
Its negative gravitational energy [mass defect]
Precisely cancels out [is equal to]
Its positive mass energy [rest mass].


“Einstein stopped in his tracks,” says Gamow,
“And, since we were crossing a street,
Several cars had to stop to avoid running us down”.


For Scott, Terence Witt has a book on null physics, http://www.nullphysics.com, but it wasn't well received.

Let us alter the notion of his Totality to be not "from nothing" to it being "canceling/adding to nothing". After all, the baryon number is 0 and there appears to be a near zero-sum in many areas.

Perhaps matter and antimatter particles maintain each other, as a system, constantly borrowing and paying back positive and negative energy or such.

The above capability, then, would be the something of the eternal basis. Totality, then, would sum to zero at large, Totality not being there if it could be seen from the outside, or something like that.

Essentially, the opposite polarity of charge nullifies existence. Without that, all would be additive and so there wouldn't be a zero sum. Things are then not really somethings, but sum-things.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby Lomax on November 28th, 2016, 4:17 pm 

I remember arguing with a friend about the origin of the universe when at university. She had been exposed to postmodern philosophy and thought she'd been let in on a secret. Arguing about the age of the universe, I made some point she couldn't answer. She said "so you think there's just one truth, and that's it?"

I wanted to shake her by the shoulders. There are uncountably many truths. It's true that 1=1, it's true that light takes about eight minutes to get here from the sun, it's true that Three Mile Island is only two and a half miles long. To say that the universe is only a few thousand years old is false. I settled for saying "yes".

Although I don't understand the connection between "how many truths are there" and "what can we say about nothingness". Is this a question about reification and the existence of abstracts? Or, given that it's in the logic forum, is it a question about dialetheism?
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3703
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby NoShips on November 28th, 2016, 6:25 pm 

After we solve this, can we discuss how many lies there are?
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby NoShips on November 28th, 2016, 8:45 pm 

"I did not have sexual relations with that moderator".
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan
Scott Mayers liked this post


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby Scott Mayers on November 29th, 2016, 3:01 am 

Dragonfly,

I agree. I tried to think of how to first reason FROM our bias of existence and treat "a nothing" as the subtraction of some given something instead. At least, this should be a first step to reasoning about whether there is or is not an absolute nothingness. If some "nothingness" exists to some degree AND acts as a justification for its possibility, this is a first step. Seeing it possible in some MEANINGFUL way is at least a step in the right direction.

Also, for those who deem absolutely everything possible but possibly with exception to absolute nothingness, the argument for these people is to ask if 'absolutely everything' exists, should this not include absolute nothingness AT LEAST? One would have to either withdraw from the stance of absolute everything to be true to something in between.

For those who might deem some specific finite count, given that each such number is in itself at least a UNIT of its own, this begs why is that so 'special', like the answer "42" from the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Why would totality favor some unique condition if it doesn't beg some 'lawgiver' to assure no other such arbitrary number of things exist?

So this is how I at least argue that one must at least accept that 'a nothingness' could exist. From that, I ask whether this 'nothingness' is itself able to have meaning within itself? Does it NOT also simultaneously represent also one absolute thing AND and infinity as well? Without going into a longer depth, you get the idea that you could demonstrate that even an "Absolute" Nothingness can be possible, even as weird as that may seem. What MUST be 'true' if anything, is that while its existence could be inferred, we could never witness this directly for obvious reasons. Totality in this way creates its own contradiction if 'original'. Then being lawless, it has no reason to be prevented from distinguishing or splitting totality into parts within itself that are distinctly 'real' relative to distinct worlds while not for others.
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby BadgerJelly on November 29th, 2016, 3:07 am 

NoShips » November 29th, 2016, 6:25 am wrote:After we solve this, can we discuss how many lies there are?


Like a cake you needs eggs to make it. Once the cake is made the eggs are gone.

Truth is like a cake and the eggs are lies.

This is the Forest Trump view of the world "Life is like a cake ..."
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: How many 'truths' are there?...

Postby Scott Mayers on November 29th, 2016, 3:11 am 

Lomax » November 28th, 2016, 3:17 pm wrote:I remember arguing with a friend about the origin of the universe when at university. She had been exposed to postmodern philosophy and thought she'd been let in on a secret. Arguing about the age of the universe, I made some point she couldn't answer. She said "so you think there's just one truth, and that's it?"

I wanted to shake her by the shoulders. There are uncountably many truths. It's true that 1=1, it's true that light takes about eight minutes to get here from the sun, it's true that Three Mile Island is only two and a half miles long. To say that the universe is only a few thousand years old is false. I settled for saying "yes".

Although I don't understand the connection between "how many truths are there" and "what can we say about nothingness". Is this a question about reification and the existence of abstracts? Or, given that it's in the logic forum, is it a question about dialetheism?

Although I'm afraid to borrow other terms as this is NOT necessary, the platonic forms ARE a good part of where I stand. But I'm afraid that even most other readers who have read Plato's works do not interpret the works in the same way. This is why I'm afraid of accepting another's philosophical terminology. The "absolutes" to me ARE real as it is precisely what even the "laws of physics" necessarily are as much as to logic. But I reduce this to an "absolute nothing" because this is the simplest condition that doesn't beg our bias, especially to some assumed 'finite absolute', like "42".

I also agree to the definition of "dialetheism", that there ARE 'true' contradictions. At least, even assuming some 'absolute something/unit', we can label this "Totality" (formal capitalized thing) which has no 'outside'. Then at least for all that does AND doesn't exist, belongs INSIDE this. This is itself a 'contradiction' as that. So is my argument from absolute nothingness. But where beginning in an absolute One thing/something AND an infinity all lead to require ALL three truths simultaneously as a 'trinity' (thus "con-" with, "tra-" a third, "diction" spoken of), ONLY where an "absolute nothingness" is true could it be considered a possible ORIGIN distinctly by itself.
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


PreviousNext

Return to Logic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests