How many 'truths' are there?...

[Scott Mayers]

As the title asks, how many 'truths' exist?

That is, we might notice that we cannot escape number when discussing anything in nature. So by asking how many 'truths', I'm asking to what can we say about things like Nothingness, versus, Somethingness, versus Everything?

If we speak of 'totatity', for instance, is it Absolutely Nothing? Did it arise out of absolute nothingness? Or is it Absolutely One thing? Is it just one OF many? Or is it Infinite?

Or, is it all of the above?

[DragonFly]

So by asking how many 'truths', I'm asking to what can we say about things like Nothingness, versus, Somethingness, versus Everything?

'Nothingness' is not a thing.

If we speak of 'totatity', for instance, is it Absolutely Nothing? Did it arise out of absolute nothingness? Or is it Absolutely One thing? Is it just one OF many? Or is it Infinite?

'Absolutely Nothing' is not an it.

'Nothing' has no existence or being for us to speak of; no capability, zilch, nada.

The part of Totality that is eternal would be the main truth. Since the eternal basis is inexhaustible 'everything' possible can come about.

[Scott Mayers]

So by asking how many 'truths', I'm asking to what can we say about things like Nothingness, versus, Somethingness, versus Everything?

'Nothingness' is not a thing.

If we speak of 'totatity', for instance, is it Absolutely Nothing? Did it arise out of absolute nothingness? Or is it Absolutely One thing? Is it just one OF many? Or is it Infinite?

'Absolutely Nothing' is not an it.

'Nothing' has no existence or being for us to speak of; no capability, zilch, nada.

The part of Totality that is eternal would be the main truth. Since the eternal basis is inexhaustible 'everything' possible can come about.

But are we not simply biased to interpret reality from BEING alive?

Ask yourself if you were 'born'? If you treat nothingness as being evidently false, were you never born?

If there are an infinite realities, should this not also include "absolute nothing" as one of these? If you only think that a distinct SET of possibilities are 'true' but NOT ALL of them (in Totality), then you support some fixed UNIQUE number of truths only. [I'm guessing this is actually your interpretation.]

[DragonFly]

But are we not simply biased to interpret reality from BEING alive?

No, because we are something, plus we have logic to use for the nature of the immediate conscious-only reality plus we can be informed by science about more.

Ask yourself if you were 'born'? If you treat nothingness as being evidently false, were you never born?

This is wrong because the somethings that go into conception and growth in the womb are not nothing. All is a continuation of what has existence.

If there are an infinite realities, should this not also include "absolute nothing" as one of these? If you only think that a distinct SET of possibilities are 'true' but NOT ALL of them (in Totality), then you support some fixed UNIQUE number of truths only. [I'm guessing this is actually your interpretation.]

There can't be anything outside of Totality or it wouldn't be Totality. One Totality, namely the eternal portion; secondary, temporary entities come and go.

[Scott Mayers]

But are we not simply biased to interpret reality from BEING alive?

No, because we are something, plus we have logic to use for the nature of the immediate conscious-only reality plus we can be informed by science about more.

We default to think we are 'real'. This is fair. It is the "I am" argument or the later Descartes' "I think therefore I am," argument. The "I am" is where we get the "Je suis" (for Jesus) source. We also get this earlier from the interpretation of the 'source' from being absolutely "nothing" by Judaism where they treated the 'name' of this to be ineffible (unable to logically speak of).

But, if the implicit, "consistency" (con- = with, -sis- = same, -tency = tense or stance)
of these ideas beg that what "I am" = "I am", then consistency should be maintained without contradiction with permanence. (a "law"). However, if everything were perfectly consistent from its origin, we'd have no CHANGE, correct? "Change" is a competing concept to "consistency" because change is that which does NOT stay the same.

This suggests that "change" is a contradiction to "consistency".

At least for an absolute "ONE", like Totality, for it to BE perfectly consistent, it would be indistinguishable from being nothing for not having the factor of "change" to compete against it. Wouldn't one absolute reality be no different than that reality to be absolutely nothing itself?

Ask yourself if you were 'born'? If you treat nothingness as being evidently false, were you never born?

This is wrong because the somethings that go into conception and growth in the womb are not nothing. All is a continuation of what has existence.

But your 'consciousness' BEGAN. Relative to you, you have not reason to be certain that all of reality began at the point of you becoming conscious. You also don't know if you actually die. All experience in life only begs us to believe that we are born or die.

I'm not against your thinking, by the way....just being intellectually critical as I would of myself thinking this. My point is that since we do NOT have the perfect certainty of "closure" to KNOW that reality is never nothing at some point, we cannot be certain that it is NOT the case. We just guess this by expecting the 'patterns' of experience to continue to be "consistent" (the same). But we already KNOW that to be perfectly consistent should also imply no change.

So if we assume ONLY something (as an 'origin' at least), we should expect no change at all because this makes at least something in totality "inconsistent", a contradiction to the assumption that at least something is a fixed and permanent truth.

If there are an infinite realities, should this not also include "absolute nothing" as one of these? If you only think that a distinct SET of possibilities are 'true' but NOT ALL of them (in Totality), then you support some fixed UNIQUE number of truths only. [I'm guessing this is actually your interpretation.]

There can't be anything outside of Totality or it wouldn't be Totality. One Totality, namely the eternal portion; secondary, temporary entities come and go.

This is a rational assumption. But it also instigated the whole of 20th Century logic and science which tried to make sense of this. If we assume "Totality" as a kind of container that holds absolutely everything, can the container itself be a part of that totality? If so, then there should be a larger container that holds THAT concept too.

Bertrand Russel and many others questioned this too when they figured they could find a universal logic that can encompass ALL truths. But Godel, a later logician, used "consistent" logic as a start to show that no system complex enough to simply combine all math could possibly exist without leading to a contradiction. He also showed that, given consistency, we cannot PROVE the system USING the very system of logic to argue it. This is a way of saying that we cannot use our biased existence to PROVE that we exist. OR, in another way, you cannot expect some BOOK'S content to provide evidence that what it asserts is 'true' in it is 'true' for saying it.

I don't know if you are familiar with the Sesame Street's "Monster at the End of this Book". But this kind of thing is the same thing. The whole book is about trying to convince one NOT to turn the page because the title of it indicates a monster exists at the end of the book. But Grover, kept demanding the reader to stop changing pages so one does not reach the end of the book for fear of that monster, of which we learn is only himself.

The paradox about "consistency" began with questioning a "liar's paradox":

"Everything I say is a lie, including this sentence."

If consistent, then we have to trust the meaning of the sentence and it is lying. But if lying, the sentence is then telling the truth. This unending circular logic is the basis of Godel's "Incompleteness theorem" which argues that beginning in "consistency" (as in a 'something' being necessarily true for being a 'something' to question it), this leads to an INCOMPLETE explanation of all 'truths' and such things cannot prove themselves from within that system.

Given all of this, it suggests that if we begin with ONE absolute thing, it leads to the existence of something NOT absolutely ONE. But this breaks any perfect rule of being ONE.

Instead, an Absolute Nothing cannot have this problem because it doesn't even HAVE the ONE thing, like a "law" to dictate reality obey it.

So do you follow me so far?

[DragonFly]

We default to think we are 'real'. This is fair. It is the "I am" argument or the later Descartes' "I think therefore I am," argument. The "I am" is where we get the "Je suis" (for Jesus) source. We also get this earlier from the interpretation of the 'source' from being absolutely "nothing" by Judaism where they treated the 'name' of this to be ineffible (unable to logically speak of).

We don't just deduce not a thing, letting some default apply, but actively deduce that something exists. The Jewish are right to the extent that 'Nothing' cannot even be meant; however, "ineffable" would apply to a something beyond description.

But, if the implicit, "consistency" (con- = with, -sis- = same, -tency = tense or stance) of these ideas beg that what "I am" = "I am", then consistency should be maintained without contradiction with permanence. (a "law"). However, if everything were perfectly consistent from its origin, we'd have no CHANGE, correct? "Change" is a competing concept to "consistency" because change is that which does NOT stay the same.

The "consistency" is only that the basis is eternally consistent in the doings of its base nature, not that it is perfectly and totally solid in the type of a One in which not anything could move, change, or transform. That kind of One is a non-existent absolute, so to speak, and mentioned just to show it as a boundary that cannot be gotten to. Obviously, you and I and everyone are transformations whose semblance lasts for a while, our atoms and molecules neither appearing from nothing, nowhere, or nowhat when we form, nor disappearing when we are done.

This suggests that "change" is a contradiction to "consistency".

No, as shown, plus as far as we know the eternal basis is a constant jitter of virtual particle pairs coming and going from an energy substrate (not Nothing) that is so inconsistent that some refer to it as random noise and static, but unmoving it is not, and so there is change, even if a good amount of that doesn't make for anything enduring for more than an instant most of the time.

At least for an absolute "ONE", like Totality, for it to BE perfectly consistent, it would be indistinguishable from being nothing for not having the factor of "change" to compete against it. Wouldn't one absolute reality be no different than that reality to be absolutely nothing itself?

'Nothing' has no being, plus there is both unity and multiplicity apparent. So, both the solid One and the complete Zero are non-existent absolutes, leaving but everything in between as relative and relational.

But your 'consciousness' BEGAN. Relative to you, you have not reason to be certain that all of reality began at the point of you becoming conscious. You also don't know if you actually die. All experience in life only begs us to believe that we are born or die.

I'm not against your thinking, by the way....just being intellectually critical as I would of myself thinking this. My point is that since we do NOT have the perfect certainty of "closure" to KNOW that reality is never nothing at some point, we cannot be certain that it is NOT the case. We just guess this by expecting the 'patterns' of experience to continue to be "consistent" (the same). But we already KNOW that to be perfectly consistent should also imply no change.

So if we assume ONLY something (as an 'origin' at least), we should expect no change at all because this makes at least something in totality "inconsistent", a contradiction to the assumption that at least something is a fixed and permanent truth.

Temporary states such as life and consciousness can come and go but the essence of the constituents remains.

If we assume "Totality" as a kind of container that holds absolutely everything, can the container itself be a part of that totality? If so, then there should be a larger container that holds THAT concept too.

It is All (its permanent portion), eternal and causeless, not a container. It has no outside.

Godel…

Something can be known to be true yet there is no proof, so, I suggest the the proof isn't needed, and that's the use of philosophy. For example, it is true that there is something, as forced to be, with no option, so, that is that.

Given all of this, it suggests that if we begin with ONE absolute thing, it leads to the existence of something NOT absolutely ONE. But this breaks any perfect rule of being ONE.

If an existent absolute of One were to be stated, the proposition would doom itself, for then there would have to be a complete Zero outside it, and Zero cannot be.

Instead, an Absolute Nothing cannot have this problem because it doesn't even HAVE the ONE thing, like a "law" to dictate reality obey it.

Again, an 'it' to Nothing has no being nor can it even be meant.

[Scott Mayers]

How do you interpret that even ANY nothingness does not exist? For all 'truths' you are biased to, if 'nothing' does NOT exists, not even one 'FALSE' thing exists because it lacks existence. Therefore EVERYTHING would require have a 'place' in totality, even if our own "contingent" universe does not have it.

[Scott Mayers]

"Totality" is such a container that holds ALL that is as well as ALL that is not. Do you contest this?

[DragonFly]

How do you interpret that even ANY nothingness does not exist? For all 'truths' you are biased to, if 'nothing' does NOT exists, not even one 'FALSE' thing exists because it lacks existence. Therefore EVERYTHING would require have a 'place' in totality, even if our own "contingent" universe does not have it.

True, not even the so-called tiniest spacer of nothingness can have any being either, such as two would-be adjacent things separated by a bit of Nothing. "Everything" does not contain any Nothing because Nothing is not a thing, for one, plus it's not an 'is' in the first place. The truth of Totality has no falseness about it or in it.

[DragonFly]

"Totality" is such a container that holds ALL that is as well as ALL that is not. Do you contest this?

All that is not cannot even be referred to in any sense, for it has no being, so 'it' cannot be 'held', that is, it has no quantities, qualities, or properties to hold; if it did then it wouldn't be a lack of anything (Nothing).

[BadgerJelly]

Scott -

Your OP is displayed in language. Language is a limited structure. Logic is what is derived from language and called "logic" as a means to solidify communication as useful rather than as plain chaotic emotional expression.

What you are dealing with is the paradox of language and this paradox comes about by extending language, and logic, beyond its means in common everyday life. We can of course refine our language and retreive some "meaning" from such paradoxical ideas.

I have written about the idea of "absolute" elsewhere briefly. Maybe you are trying to direct us to Platonic Forms? If not then we may have something in common.

As a point of reference can you equate your question with Platonics Forms in some way? If not why? Hope this will help get to the paradox presented in your OP.

[Scott Mayers]

How do you interpret that even ANY nothingness does not exist? For all 'truths' you are biased to, if 'nothing' does NOT exists, not even one 'FALSE' thing exists because it lacks existence. Therefore EVERYTHING would require have a 'place' in totality, even if our own "contingent" universe does not have it.

True, not even the so-called tiniest spacer of nothingness can have any being either, such as two would-be adjacent things separated by a bit of Nothing. "Everything" does not contain any Nothing because Nothing is not a thing, for one, plus it's not an 'is' in the first place. The truth of Totality has no falseness about it or in it.

I wasn't asserting my opinion but asking how you derive that not even some nothing is non-existent. In context I see that you interpret nothing as "no thing" and so take it by definition that it lacks existence by its negation of being a 'thing' and therefore could not be even 'something'.

Is our language, though, what is merely biasing this. We used to call the first automobiles as "horseless carriage", this way. It is understandable that those negative words that we can grasp in time becomes relabeled in a positive form. A 'positive' version for "some nothing" is sometimes referred to as a "vacuum". Given this, do you deny that a vacuum exists?

In another way, we also treat that given something in some place and time, if we take that away, since it lacks BEING where it was, it is "absent". Similarly if one were to ask if someone how much money they have in their pocket, you may reasonably say that you have 'none'.

So with these, do you not think that the concept of these "nothings" are not real? not meaningless?

[Scott Mayers]

Scott -

Your OP is displayed in language. Language is a limited structure. Logic is what is derived from language and called "logic" as a means to solidify communication as useful rather than as plain chaotic emotional expression.

What you are dealing with is the paradox of language and this paradox comes about by extending language, and logic, beyond its means in common everyday life. We can of course refine our language and retreive some "meaning" from such paradoxical ideas.

I have written about the idea of "absolute" elsewhere briefly. Maybe you are trying to direct us to Platonic Forms? If not then we may have something in common.

As a point of reference can you equate your question with Platonics Forms in some way? If not why? Hope this will help get to the paradox presented in your OP.

I can bring this in too later. I want to establish first the lesser extreme of a nothing and then come back to the "absolute" part. If DragonFly doesn't even agree with 'some' of nothing to be possible as a special case, the absolute definition(s) of it would be harder.

[DragonFly]

Is our language, though, what is merely biasing this. We used to call the first automobiles as "horseless carriage", this way. It is understandable that those negative words that we can grasp in time becomes relabeled in a positive form. A 'positive' version for "some nothing" is sometimes referred to as a "vacuum". Given this, do you deny that a vacuum exists?

There wouldn't be a true vacuum of nothing. The vacuum is the physicist's nothing, but only so to speak, since it is still a something. The same with their zero-point energy reference, being just a convention, for there is energy in it. Krauss put a misleading title to his book, 'A Universe From Nothing', correcting it in the fine print.

In another way, we also treat that given something in some place and time, if we take that away, since it lacks BEING where it was, it is "absent". Similarly if one were to ask if someone how much money they have in their pocket, you may reasonably say that you have 'none'.

So with these, do you not think that the concept of these "nothings" are not real? not meaningless?

These absences are only relative to a something container. Empty cabinets are fine, too, but Nothing doesn't have anything, much less a cabinet.

[Scott Mayers]

There are different levels and definitions of 'vacuums' for the physicists. I want to avoid external definitions of those.

Take any cubic volume of space with or without any 'other' thing you want in it. You believe that no true nothing exists to an extreme. As such, you are forced to explain HOW you define any 'point' in it. If you locate, say any one corner, what is the meaning of the point the sides of that cube meet up to?

If you assert that such a point is never 'zero' in spacial quantity, it is either Finite or Infinite.

Question (1): If Finite, such as some 'tiniest' sized thing, what 'size' could you name without just begging that it cannot be further cut in half?

Question (2): If you simply beg that it exists regardless, what "shape" could it be?

Question (3): If Infinite, then should the size of the cube be itself Infinite being a multiple of that point?

[DragonFly]

Take any cubic volume of space

Newton's notion of absolute space has gone away. That background isn't there any more as something other than stuff, say as space with a lone quantity (as volume). The span of fields/relations 'stuff' is itself is what makes for what was formerly called 'space' that used to be a separate, inactive, background. Points are anywhere and everywhere you wish to identify them as a portion of field quanta. Einstein thought that all is field, and I suppose it is like this in quantum field theory, too.

…some 'tiniest' sized thing, what 'size' could you name without just begging that it cannot be further cut in half?

So far, the Planck size is the smallest we can refer to now; however, if it is a truly discrete entity then it clashes with the field continuum idea. The same with the Planck time, which also ruins Zeno's paradox.

…what "shape" could it be?

We have to wait until I get better glasses.

If Infinite, then should the size of the cube be itself Infinite being a multiple of that point?

Maybe you mean infinitesimal points or points having no size, making for infinite numbers of points able to fit anywhere(allowing also for infinite density). Einstein's equations go to infinity(a bad sign) for points, with all of them residing in one place/point as a 'singularity'; so, some theorists, such as in string theory, propose/utilize something with extension instead of employing points.

In the even lower arena of the eternal basis before anything emerged form it, including what we call space and time, which then would not be fundamental, a lot of random noise is proposed as a ground state.

Farewell nonexistence, for, no matter what, 'it' can't exist. To be or not to be is not a question.

[BadgerJelly]

Scott -

Sorry, you've lost me. Are there degrees of "nothing"? I think Dragon has a good handle on this. There is no existing "nothing". Nothing is absense of something. Granted these kinds of ideas and quite strange with terms such as "void", "null" and "oblivion" being easily used in a contrary way.

In another thread someone is saying something can exist and be unknowable. Maybe you'd agree with them and find some common ground there because to me its either too abstract or outright absurdity.

If you are using a special definition of "nothing" then probably best to find a different term and explain what it means more precisely?

Honestly on face value you seem to be denying the value of time and space as a quality of "thingness" rather than nothingness.

I mentioned in other thread Kant and Kantian noumenon in positive and negative senses. If you are familiar with his terms I may be able to gain better understanding from that position?

[Scott Mayers]

Take any cubic volume of space

Newton's notion of absolute space has gone away. That background isn't there any more as something other than stuff, say as space with a lone quantity (as volume). The span of fields/relations 'stuff' is itself is what makes for what was formerly called 'space' that used to be a separate, inactive, background. Points are anywhere and everywhere you wish to identify them as a portion of field quanta. Einstein thought that all is field, and I suppose it is like this in quantum field theory, too.

Please do not enter external assumptions about what I'm 'giving'. Although I could talk on these, they are digressions to the topic.

I am asking you to take any 'volume' of space since you seem to be clearly biased to what the pre-Romans belief in the 'ineffibility' of Zero. The reason zero itself was resisted was for the bias to assume that what WE are ASSURES that "Only a something exists at minimal."

If you are insistent of this, I've been trying to at least determine if you accept that "nothing" actually has MEANING in an essential way. That is, is "nothing" a word that even means anything remotely or should it be simply taken out of the vocabulary? Can we remove the idea even as a utility of reality?

…some 'tiniest' sized thing, what 'size' could you name without just begging that it cannot be further cut in half?

So far, the Planck size is the smallest we can refer to now; however, if it is a truly discrete entity then it clashes with the field continuum idea. The same with the Planck time, which also ruins Zeno's paradox.

Okay, you are misinterpreting a "Planck size", a utility based on relating common things OF the atomic size. It is a convenient 'tool' or RULER. If it has a size, you are begging THAT it cannot have incremental measures even imaginatively 'drawn' on that ruler. But then this is EXACTLY indistinguishable to NOTHING itself on a mere logical basis to precisely the way you think nothing could not exist. You are just begging a 'positive' word to those things you think "matter", just as the word "matter" was derived as the assumption that only material existence and NOT the space in between exist.

…what "shape" could it be?

We have to wait until I get better glasses.

This is a religious answer as in "WHEN you die, you will see what God looks like." This does not justify HOW you can assert a smallest size if the "size" doesn't FIT according what you already presume we MUST treat as our bias to interpret things that "matter" as what we only see. You are just begging it exists but not willing to notice that this is equivalent to the same "nothing" I'm saying 'exists'. My interpretation differs though. I don't pretend THAT it has shape or size when I can't 'speak' of such.

If Infinite, then should the size of the cube be itself Infinite being a multiple of that point?

Maybe you mean infinitesimal points or points having no size, making for infinite numbers of points able to fit anywhere(allowing also for infinite density). Einstein's equations go to infinity(a bad sign) for points, with all of them residing in one place/point as a 'singularity'; so, some theorists, such as in string theory, propose/utilize something with extension instead of employing points.

In the even lower arena of the eternal basis before anything emerged form it, including what we call space and time, which then would not be fundamental, a lot of random noise is proposed as a ground state.

Farewell nonexistence, for, no matter what, 'it' can't exist. To be or not to be is not a question.

Then you require showing HOW even the concept of an absolute UNIT (like your interpretation of a Planck sized ruler) is no less a 'tool' in your mind lacking substance.

Coming at it from the perspective of assuming an absolute ONE, the infinites still exist and what those like Godel's theorems were using to show HOW given something "consistent" leads to a SPLIT coexisting "Consistent/Inconsistent" reality.....and "Incomplete" reality IF you assume ONLY consistency.

That is this reduces to the reality that you cannot have one VALUE without at least another external to it that EXISTS. So given "totality", for instance, if this is absolutely ONE, then if nothing exists neither in nor outside of it, leads to requiring that ALL things exist (an infinity), because there is no such thing as anything that doesn't exist.

So THEN, Absolute Everything exists, which MUST include even "absolutely nothing".

[Scott Mayers]

Scott -

Sorry, you've lost me. Are there degrees of "nothing"? I think Dragon has a good handle on this. There is no existing "nothing". Nothing is absense of something. Granted these kinds of ideas and quite strange with terms such as "void", "null" and "oblivion" being easily used in a contrary way.

In another thread someone is saying something can exist and be unknowable. Maybe you'd agree with them and find some common ground there because to me its either too abstract or outright absurdity.

If you are using a special definition of "nothing" then probably best to find a different term and explain what it means more precisely?

Honestly on face value you seem to be denying the value of time and space as a quality of "thingness" rather than nothingness.

I mentioned in other thread Kant and Kantian noumenon in positive and negative senses. If you are familiar with his terms I may be able to gain better understanding from that position?

I'm saying that you cannot HAVE the meaning of even ONE without the contrast of ZERO AND INFINITY.

That is, GIVEN an ABSOLUTE ONE (any absolute 'unit'), it leads to ABSOLUTE ONE is NOT true. Rather for it to BE requires contrast to at least some ABSOLUTE NOTHING and ABSOLUTE EVERYTHING.

It is this logic that simply asserts contradiction is 'true' IF you try to begin with the rule that "no contradiction" (no paradox) actually exists. I'm NOT against the idea. But it just means that you cannot BEGIN by assuming a something.

This is the bias that "Genesis" of the Judaeo-Christian bible treats of its "God" to be defaulted to assign all that it is and does is "good" [the very word "God" is a derivative for "good" and vice versa].

If you compare this to the religious question, this is like asking how 'evil' could follow if this absolute "good" thing originates all that is. If "evil" necessarily follows, then what is "good" is itself meaningless. It would make more sense to reverse the role: to begin assuming "evil" as the ORIGIN because if what is "good" follows, this itself can be fair because it is either an "improvement" on its origin (as we more literally witness of things like being born from no existence to GROW and be more complex), OR, if not 'true', then neither "good" nor "bad" exists, which is fair if things are simply all 'bad' anyways.

If Absolutely Nothing ORIGINATES, given even your personal feeling that it should be default, as some 'contradiction', this is alright because even 'contradiction', as with "inconsistency", are LAWS. But to Absolute nothing, NOT EVEN LAWS exist. As such, this at least does not even have a LAW that demands it must remain being non-existent. That is, where an absolute one cannot exist without leading to an infinity which includes zero, you CAN begin with an ABSOLUTE nothing that derives one and everything without breaking any 'laws' that the others are biased to require following by their meanings.

[Scott Mayers]

Definition: ONE(ness) is the property of being at least 'some of X' where X is an undefined variable. That is, the X can be 'empty' of content. But it is like a "box" to which we don't open to see what it is. You can also think of the box as a memory unit that CONTAINS either nothing or any 'number' of things. Then "ONE" is just the count of the box but the 'value' inside may be itself nothing OR ANY NUMBER of 'things'.
One, means some 'existence' at least.
Since ANY FINITE number can be a 'unit' in its own right, ANY number greater than zero that is not itself infinite can be considered, "one". A 'unit' of five, for instance is ONE thing of five. But it may also be a 'unit' of nothing. We just don't actually look in the box. The box itself could be pure 'solid' such that there is no inside but ONLY box. As long as we don't try to open it though, this is ONE factor.


Definition: Zero(ness) is the absence of anything. If you feel compelled to think that this must be defined in terms of "one", then you can think of this as (+1-1). But notice that this implies an understanding of at least 'three' factors, "1", "+", and "-". If you at least accept that the above "oneness" can be a box, the box could contain any reality that 'cycles' on itself. The "+1-1" then might be equally though of as the brackets, "()" where the left bracket means "+1" and the right bracket is the "-1". Notice that a "0" is just both brackets combined and is just like the box itself. A memory location BEGINS with no power and so by default holds NO charge information until you turn on the computer. But to nothing, just as a box, it can 'contain' more boxes infinitely. As such, a Zero is equivalent to being Zero as it is to One.
One, though, is NOT anything more than being One.

0 => (0 and 1)

but

1 => 1 [only]

This is why in math we 'un-define' the division by zero. Accepting zero as 'defined' to be divided though IS real but just NOT UNIQUELY of one value. This is alright because being non-unique makes it also 'non-ONE' originally.

If we think of HOW MANY "0"s or "1"s exist, these are both 'infinite', just of different kinds. But Infinity is necessary for something to not REMAIN fixed, like a unit of "1", thus, ONE cannot be 'infinite' other than as a 'zero' units of 'zeroes' ....."00" (zero of zeroes).

So,

0 => (0 and 1 and 00)

00 => (0 or 1)

1 => 1


Definition: Infinite un-defined count or measure that cannot be captured with closure.


Only the "0" [Zero] covers or completes all counts and is the only 'perfect' unit. The "00" acts as the box in that it may contain a "something" or "nothing" INSIDE it. But the "1" can only speak of the box without opening it or caring what is or is not the value of what is inside.

Beginning in an "absolute" nothing, or a relative "absolute nothing" (like points in space), it may mean that

0 = 0

But if this is the case, then Zero is Zero means they are coincidentally identical or "consistent" in kind and forces it to also be

0 = 1

if this "absolute" cannot be 'true'. Either way, ONLY FROM ABSOLUTE NOTHING can any other reality be uniquely originated.

This is what I call the "Zeroth" order Metalogic that is universally most complete and includes all that is 'true', 'not true', 'true and not true', and 'not true and not-not true", etc, to infinity.

This is necessary for my own theory as a start and technically will be a "theorem" when complete.

[DragonFly]

Please do not enter external assumptions about what I'm ‘giving'.

One can’t ‘give’ what isn’t there, such as ‘space’, ’Nothing’, or ‘infinity’.

I am asking you to take any 'volume' of space since you seem to be clearly biased to what the pre-Romans belief in the 'ineffibility' of Zero. The reason zero itself was resisted was for the bias to assume that what WE are ASSURES that "Only a something exists at minimal.”

We could take stuff/fields instead. Existence can’t have a contrast class that is something, so, existence doesn't have a contrast class.


THAT BLANKETY BLANK ZERO

Euclid and Pythagorus never even thought of it,
Perhaps not needing it for geometry;
So it was and wasn’t ‘Greek’ to them.

Aristotle was deathly afraid of it.
Even the word ‘naughty’ came from it.

‘0’ had a chilly reception everywhere,
It’s rounded symbol enclosing nothing,
As if it could be captured,
But ‘nothing’ never changed,
Being the same even if you took it away.

Humans stumbled on zero and nothing by accident,
Then recoiled in horror, fearing it, reviling it,
And sometimes even banning it outright,
As some kind of evil influence.

After many centuries, it seemed to be tamed,
Put in its place, as a simple little placeholder.

Then the beast reared its ugly head for real,
Misbehaving like a monster right and left:

It brought instant death by multiplication,
And wrought total absurdity through division,
It still halting our expensive computers.

It exploded into the ambiguous fog of infinity;
It ran away from us in calculus,
Sliding us down the slippery slope
Of closing in on it but never reaching it.

It spawned ghosts such as negative numbers,
Imaginaries, and those ephemeral infinitesimals.

Both the genie and the genius
Had been let out of the bottle,
And the goose egg still
Confounds and confuses,
No one knowing zilch about it,
It creating paradoxes left and right.

If you are insistent of this, I've been trying to at least determine if you accept that "nothing" actually has MEANING in an essential way. That is, is "nothing" a word that even means anything remotely or should it be simply taken out of the vocabulary? Can we remove the idea even as a utility of reality?

The relative ‘nothing’ is fine but ‘Absolute Nothing’ cannot even be meant, so it only harms the vocabulary when used for something that could be. The same for ‘infinity’ being used as an amount or an extent, since the definition is that ’it’ cannot be gotten to.

Okay, you are misinterpreting a "Planck size", a utility based on relating common things OF the atomic size. It is a convenient 'tool' or RULER. If it has a size, you are begging THAT it cannot have incremental measures even imaginatively 'drawn' on that ruler. But then this is EXACTLY indistinguishable to NOTHING itself on a mere logical basis to precisely the way you think nothing could not exist. You are just begging a 'positive' word to those things you think "matter", just as the word "matter" was derived as the assumption that only material existence and NOT the space in between exist.

The Planck dimensions are way less than atomic sizes, and are derived from the constants c, h, and G. The Planck time is the shortest time in which something can happen, and so then we know that everything can’t happen at once. There is a shortest size (or a limit to what we can get at, ideally), the Planck size, which, if the third dimension is real, would be a volume, or, if there is a holographic principle (max black hole horizon entropy depends only on 2D), an area.

One could, ideally, have a ruler or a clock with Planck dimensions on it. Time having to be an interval is what doomed one of Zeno’s paradoxes of the hare and the turtle.

This is a religious answer as in "WHEN you die, you will see what God looks like." This does not justify HOW you can assert a smallest size if the "size" doesn't FIT according what you already presume we MUST treat as our bias to interpret things that "matter" as what we only see. You are just begging it exists but not willing to notice that this is equivalent to the same "nothing" I'm saying 'exists'. My interpretation differs though. I don't pretend THAT it has shape or size when I can't 'speak' of such.

“Better glasses” means a better scientific way of finding things out. So far, there is a smallest size thought to be so.

While we’re at it, ‘God’ as a person-like thinking, planning, creative system of mind as First and Fundamental is impossible because any system has parts which would have to be more fundamental. Even a proton can’t be fundamental, since it has parts of quarks and gluons. Look for the true fundamental to be a simple, continuous function, such as something like a wave; composites and complexities come about upward and in the future, not downward and in the past.

I could grant a highly evolved alien who got to be in charge of a lot or made some things operate.

Then you require showing HOW even the concept of an absolute UNIT (like your interpretation of a Planck sized ruler) is no less a 'tool' in your mind lacking substance.

Even the Planck entities are not fundamental. See the Pandora thread: http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=31360

Coming at it from the perspective of assuming an absolute ONE, the infinites still exist and what those like Godel's theorems were using to show HOW given something "consistent" leads to a SPLIT coexisting "Consistent/Inconsistent" reality.....and "Incomplete" reality IF you assume ONLY consistency.

That is this reduces to the reality that you cannot have one VALUE without at least another external to it that EXISTS. So given "totality", for instance, if this is absolutely ONE, then if nothing exists neither in nor outside of it, leads to requiring that ALL things exist (an infinity), because there is no such thing as anything that doesn't exist.

So THEN, Absolute Everything exists, which MUST include even "absolutely nothing".

An Absolute ONE cannot be, for then, as you say, the impossible Zero would have to be outside the ONE. ONE and ZERO, then, are the non-existents that cannot be gotten to, since they aren’t there, making for them to be as boundaries that cannot be gotten to, much less through, which could be called “non-existent absolutes”.

Enjoy all that lies between, in the finite universe.

P.S. I could send you nothing for Christmas. Maybe I’ll even send you a few of them.

[Scott Mayers]

Please do not enter external assumptions about what I'm ‘giving'.

One can’t ‘give’ what isn’t there, such as ‘space’, ’Nothing’, or ‘infinity’.

That's because "give" is a real ACTION, a type of "thing" dynamically. To "giving" requires first being 'real' BEFORE one can give. Or did you exist eternally to "KNOW" you are correct?

When NO LAWS exist, no 'law', not even what you can 'give' is there. OTHERWISE, "0", "1", AND "00"[infinity] coexist. That is beginning in "1", this requires that it contain all IN it, including "0". [You can add '0' infinitely in "1".] To begin in "00", this ASSURES both "0" and "1", as possibilities exist but you cannot have "00" without MORE than "1". So "00" cannot exist without "1" and "1" cannot exist without "0".

The Christian "trinity" likely derived of this in origin (but lost to obscurity in religious dogmatic interpretations).
Either way, "0" is meaningful AND MUST be used if one is to actually be able to reconcile logic and physics.

I mentioned Godel and Turing because these relate. When you start with "consistency" as an original assumption, it leads to those contradictions. But Zero is NOT a contradiction. Even given your inability to imagine it absolutely PROVES that you can't reconcile it "consistently" and WHY the solution is to base logic in "inconsistency" because it IS complete.

I am asking you to take any 'volume' of space since you seem to be clearly biased to what the pre-Romans belief in the 'ineffibility' of Zero. The reason zero itself was resisted was for the bias to assume that what WE are ASSURES that "Only a something exists at minimal.”

We could take stuff/fields instead. Existence can’t have a contrast class that is something, so, existence doesn't have a contrast class.


THAT BLANKETY BLANK ZERO

Euclid and Pythagorus never even thought of it,
Perhaps not needing it for geometry;
So it was and wasn’t ‘Greek’ to them.

Aristotle was deathly afraid of it.
Even the word ‘naughty’ came from it.

‘0’ had a chilly reception everywhere,
It’s rounded symbol enclosing nothing,
As if it could be captured,
But ‘nothing’ never changed,
Being the same even if you took it away.

Humans stumbled on zero and nothing by accident,
Then recoiled in horror, fearing it, reviling it,
And sometimes even banning it outright,
As some kind of evil influence.

After many centuries, it seemed to be tamed,
Put in its place, as a simple little placeholder.

Then the beast reared its ugly head for real,
Misbehaving like a monster right and left:

It brought instant death by multiplication,
And wrought total absurdity through division,
It still halting our expensive computers.

It exploded into the ambiguous fog of infinity;
It ran away from us in calculus,
Sliding us down the slippery slope
Of closing in on it but never reaching it.

It spawned ghosts such as negative numbers,
Imaginaries, and those ephemeral infinitesimals.

Both the genie and the genius
Had been let out of the bottle,
And the goose egg still
Confounds and confuses,
No one knowing zilch about it,
It creating paradoxes left and right.

Nice. But it doesn't assert your position but only my own. "Paradox/contradiction" is only existing IF you beg that ONE solution must be UNIQUE (Uni- means one and thus is begging).

Think how 'functions' are defined in contrast to 'relations'. A relation is more complete and includes functions. Functions are the expectation of having ONE UNIQUE solution to any input. But reality has MORE than one unique solution as a relation does in math. You are confused because you FEEL COMFORTABLE to have a calculator that produces one unique answer to any input questions. That is what biases you. The proof is that we have consciousness that can actually perceive more than one thing at once (a kind of super-super position of sensations). This makes my logic also "scientific" in that it is universally observed to be true.

It doesn't mean that "one" is not true, it just means that reality necessarily requires that "0", "1", and "00" must coexist. Zeno's apparent 'paradox' of Achilles and the Tortoise is resolved ONLY because a point beyond the goal exists in both time and space. We treat the 'goal' of getting to that point, the moment when the space ends but that 'time' still exists. If BOTH have an 'end' simultaneously, then Zeno's paradox applies, as in the error of the Big Bang's singularity.

If you are insistent of this, I've been trying to at least determine if you accept that "nothing" actually has MEANING in an essential way. That is, is "nothing" a word that even means anything remotely or should it be simply taken out of the vocabulary? Can we remove the idea even as a utility of reality?

The relative ‘nothing’ is fine but ‘Absolute Nothing’ cannot even be meant, so it only harms the vocabulary when used for something that could be. The same for ‘infinity’ being used as an amount or an extent, since the definition is that ’it’ cannot be gotten to.

I have a closed theory/theorem for physics that cannot be understood without understanding the concept of absolute nothingness in the same way we cannot use advance beyond Roman Numerals UNTIL we begin to understand that zero is NOT an ineffable absolute, but a REAL absolute.

You're thinking that if you begin with a local kind of 'nothing' already WHEN "law" exists, that "law" insists "nothing remain nothing" unless motivated from outside of it. But if you consider totality AND stop biasing yourself to assume that time exists there/then, an Absolute nothing would only be an 'approach' from our perspective with reason. This deludes us into thinking that everything we KNOW is based on our capacity to experience it. But this treats physics as merely a human invention. That is, it is anthropomorphic to assume reality exists simply where we exist. It just means that our existence is what we are interpreting reality from.

Godel's second law (based on initial "consistency") assures that you cannot prove existence FROM existence. But if you begin from OUTSIDE of 'existence', this works. But the least one can assume is NOTHING. Everything else is bias to a religious interpretation because you are burdened to ASSUME something greater without evidence WHAT that is.

Okay, you are misinterpreting a "Planck size", a utility based on relating common things OF the atomic size. It is a convenient 'tool' or RULER. If it has a size, you are begging THAT it cannot have incremental measures even imaginatively 'drawn' on that ruler. But then this is EXACTLY indistinguishable to NOTHING itself on a mere logical basis to precisely the way you think nothing could not exist. You are just begging a 'positive' word to those things you think "matter", just as the word "matter" was derived as the assumption that only material existence and NOT the space in between exist.

The Planck dimensions are way less than atomic sizes, and are derived from the constants c, h, and G. The Planck time is the shortest time in which something can happen, and so then we know that everything can’t happen at once. There is a shortest size (or a limit to what we can get at, ideally), the Planck size, which, if the third dimension is real, would be a volume, or, if there is a holographic principle (max black hole horizon entropy depends only on 2D), an area.

One could, ideally, have a ruler or a clock with Planck dimensions on it. Time having to be an interval is what doomed one of Zeno’s paradoxes of the hare and the turtle.

You're begging that a minute-like distance exists on a clock you call "plancks". But if it were the 'smallest', you wouldn't be able to point to where it is. It cannot have an 'interval' nor quantity without quantity greater than zero being used to give it meaning.

I already explained that Zeno's paradox is NOT a paradox because time and space exists beyond the objective. It is also 'in sync'. Time is just a type of unit distance in kind to a meter, both of which we define relative to our existence, not ABSOLUTELY.

This is a religious answer as in "WHEN you die, you will see what God looks like." This does not justify HOW you can assert a smallest size if the "size" doesn't FIT according what you already presume we MUST treat as our bias to interpret things that "matter" as what we only see. You are just begging it exists but not willing to notice that this is equivalent to the same "nothing" I'm saying 'exists'. My interpretation differs though. I don't pretend THAT it has shape or size when I can't 'speak' of such.

“Better glasses” means a better scientific way of finding things out. So far, there is a smallest size thought to be so.

While we’re at it, ‘God’ as a person-like thinking, planning, creative system of mind as First and Fundamental is impossible because any system has parts which would have to be more fundamental. Even a proton can’t be fundamental, since it has parts of quarks and gluons. Look for the true fundamental to be a simple, continuous function, such as something like a wave; composites and complexities come about upward and in the future, not downward and in the past.

I could grant a highly evolved alien who got to be in charge of a lot or made some things operate.

Your 'more' I underlined above is not 'fundamental' if you begin in nothing. Only more than nothing could even allow some room for a "God".

Then you require showing HOW even the concept of an absolute UNIT (like your interpretation of a Planck sized ruler) is no less a 'tool' in your mind lacking substance.

Even the Planck entities are not fundamental. See the Pandora thread: http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=31360

I already understood it as not being absolute. But why mention it? All you are saying is because it is the smallest measure we use thus far, this is all that 'matters'. I disagree with the assumption THAT nature itself is 'provisionally' valid. This is a human disposition. But then treat the zero as the most MINIMAL we can presume.

Coming at it from the perspective of assuming an absolute ONE, the infinites still exist and what those like Godel's theorems were using to show HOW given something "consistent" leads to a SPLIT coexisting "Consistent/Inconsistent" reality.....and "Incomplete" reality IF you assume ONLY consistency.

That is this reduces to the reality that you cannot have one VALUE without at least another external to it that EXISTS. So given "totality", for instance, if this is absolutely ONE, then if nothing exists neither in nor outside of it, leads to requiring that ALL things exist (an infinity), because there is no such thing as anything that doesn't exist.

So THEN, Absolute Everything exists, which MUST include even "absolutely nothing".

An Absolute ONE cannot be, for then, as you say, the impossible Zero would have to be outside the ONE. ONE and ZERO, then, are the non-existents that cannot be gotten to, since they aren’t there, making for them to be as boundaries that cannot be gotten to, much less through, which could be called “non-existent absolutes”.

Enjoy all that lies between, in the finite universe.

P.S. I could send you nothing for Christmas. Maybe I’ll even send you a few of them.

[I already received your last nothing for Christmas. ....wait.....I think I have another one in the mail!! Thank you!. I guess I owe you an infinity more in return. I'll add 42 just in case.]

That assumption is the rationale for "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" to treat "42" as THE answer, as a biased assumption that some number in between must exist. But WHICH? And the reason you shouldn't be able to answer this because you're beginning with some assumption that our 'contingent' (special) reality is all that MATTERS!

To resolve the questions of physics and make it uniform without contradiction requires beginning with absolute nothing. Then everything follows when you DERIVE "consistency" FROM the "inconsistency" of absolute nothing; there IS a logical way to describe it without privilege to special anthropomorphic interpretations.

[BadgerJelly]

Scott -

I don't knwo what you mean ... sorry.

[DragonFly]

OK, let us presume the impossible and have an Absolute Nothing with nothing to it, as a total lack of anything, with no laws to help it out, either, since not anything is even ‘there’ where there is no ‘there’, nor ‘what’, etc.. There are no observers, but I’ll look in on it without affecting it by not doing anything to have me there.

0 = 0

Nothing is going on in the non-arena in which no-things can’t progress because there are no laws of progression, since there are no laws or properties whatsoever, as well as no ‘are’s.

Cripes, this is worse than than listening to politics, religion, or other babbling.


18 zillion years later:

OK, this is boring, I’m going to cheat…

0/0

Now I have Nothing differentiating itself from itself, although ‘itself’ doesn’t have an ‘itself’, through some magic way, such as Yin + Yang = Tao, into positives and negatives, or maybe vice-versa, as 1 + -1 = 0 or Tao = Yin +Yang.

Now we have something, but we slipped in some kind of law to activate it from Nothing.

Oh, darn, now that this can happen, things from Nothing are springing up all over the place!

[Scott Mayers]

Scott -

Sorry, you've lost me. Are there degrees of "nothing"? I think Dragon has a good handle on this. There is no existing "nothing". Nothing is absense of something. Granted these kinds of ideas and quite strange with terms such as "void", "null" and "oblivion" being easily used in a contrary way.

In another thread someone is saying something can exist and be unknowable. Maybe you'd agree with them and find some common ground there because to me its either too abstract or outright absurdity.

If you are using a special definition of "nothing" then probably best to find a different term and explain what it means more precisely?

Honestly on face value you seem to be denying the value of time and space as a quality of "thingness" rather than nothingness.

I mentioned in other thread Kant and Kantian noumenon in positive and negative senses. If you are familiar with his terms I may be able to gain better understanding from that position?

To QM, there IS degrees of voids. 'Space' is a vacuum but no longer presumed to BE nothing. Then there is the 'vacuum' where you initially remove the air out of two cups in limited space (towards zero space). This acts as a powerful 'force' in that the absence acts as 'glue' between other matter.

Something that exists but cannot be knowable? That, if interpreted logically could be many things. In logic/math, Godel's Incompleteness theorem more strictly states that for any most complex mathematical systems (logic), there are always truths that exist but can not be proven.

A simplified example might be to question whether you 'know' there whether you 'die'. We only infer this by the pattern of things we see WHILE we are alive THAT some things appear to die. But if you die, being dead could not prove to you THAT you are dead but would still be 'true'.

[Scott Mayers]

OK, let us presume the impossible and have an Absolute Nothing with nothing to it, as a total lack of anything, with no laws to help it out, either, since not anything is even ‘there’ where there is no ‘there’, nor ‘what’, etc.. There are no observers, but I’ll look in on it without affecting it by not doing anything to have me there.

0 = 0

Nothing is going on in the non-arena in which no-things can’t progress because there are no laws of progression, since there are no laws or properties whatsoever, as well as no ‘are’s.

To us, simply even pretending it was true, BEING so means that it would have to "exist", even if just experimenting in mind. But as you noticed, for it to even not be what it is not, makes it "consistent" for being inconsistent..

But that CONTRADICTS it to BE "inconsistent" when you assume it exists (is "consistent") also.

But if you already KNOW it to be "inconsistent" but it leads to BEING "consistent" when you assume it, while this is contradictory, that's alright because being nothing, not even some mindful being that WANTS rules to obey, that state is like the wild west prior to establishing laws. It is relatively chaotic to both be and not be simultaneously

0 = 0 AND 1

But for math, we restrict this to 0 = 0. And we STILL lead to contradiction because 0/0 then would have to lead to 0 = 1 as well. So we UN- define it ("un-", to TAKE AWAY, versus simply lacking definition). We are forced to BREAK our own rules just to retrofit math to suit our belief that nature is strictly consistent.

This goes to favor a "Multi-world" interpretation. But this doesn't mean we could ever PROVE directly this. If everything is possible, you might interpret this to mean all your dreams FROM HERE could come 'true'. But if everything were 'true', this ALSO means impossible things (think Alice in Wonderland). So our world is one that also has to exist with limits (relative impossibilities from here).

For 'real' worlds like an Alice in Wonderland world, that could only exist as INCOMPLETE and so wouldn't be one that persists nor one we could actually experience. But the 'parts' of it that ARE the story to us, are 'true' to us in that way.

[BadgerJelly]

Scott -

I think I kind of see where you are coming from. My critic, given my assumptions are accurate enough, is that I am unsure about how you've brought mathematics into the discussion and the need to talk about physical time and space.

This does seem to relate to what I was discussing elsewhere concerning prescience. It is, in my experience, particulary difficult to shut out scientific experience and revert to a natural attitude when tackling problems. We are institutionalised to view the world a certain way due to our cultural inheritance and the world we've constructed around us (in the metaphorical and physical sense!).

I was agreeing with Dragon because like him I was caught up in the worded meanings presented. I think you'd do better to establish a version of the OP that opens up the reader to forcably reducing word meaning in reference to "nothing" and "absolute".

What I spend a lot of time looking at is how we present the world with language and how our language alters our perceptions in various different ways. In our modern world the developments with made and inherited in language are often blindly held. We cannot see the wood for the trees so to speak.

Like in another thread talking about "existing" and "knowable", these terms have a broader meaning than meets the eye at first glance. "Truth" needs to be framed to have technical meaning in hownyou are using it. I refer to "truth" general as a tool of logic. In the sense that it has use with antonyms in language and can be misused easily by not considering the type of antonym in use. Then we enter a whole confusion of definitions and delineations. As an example of misuse some may say if I am not cold I must be hot, this is a false statement. Whereas if I say I am a man therefore I am not a woman this weighs in as a truth ... but this is soley dependent upon how we delineate between a man and a woman, here is the blindness of language over the natural world. The commonly held and unchangable features experienced in a naive natural attitude are taken as "fixed". When an experience of somethinf different that contradicts the previously fixed view we either refuse to acknowedge it, refine our experience to nullify it or in some cases adjust our delineations or create a fresh concept with which to frame the position that refuses to fit into the common antonym structure.

[Scott Mayers]

I agree to what you are saying Badger Jelly,

I asked this here and elsewhere before because I'm trying to actually OPEN the understanding of perspective interpretation as one factor necessary to understand logic. This kind of question is what began many religions by original questions on what the nature of 'god' was. But I think it is actually a rational part of SECULAR reasoning for ANY inquiry because it relates to problems of logic AND science in how one takes some interpretation over another.

My argument is to generally assert that IF there is ANY origin, scientifically, religiously, or logic, in general, it has to be from nothing. If we assume an 'origin', it CANNOT be strictly from a 'finite' non-zero concept, summarized by ONE, nor an INFINITY, because this is just an extension of either one, or zero by any perspective.

THEN, because our bias to interpret reality is to assume some "law", "law" itself is biasing a logic from nothing. To logic/math/science, the early part of the last century tended to close the book on this in favor of a 'one' or 'infinite' type of logic. But ignoring an origin of logic and science from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is actually essential to draw the conflicts in science to closure.

Relativity and QM, for instance cannot be understood in a way that combines these into one theory without a logic that begins "inconsistent" (by some, "paraconsistent"). Then you DERIVE 'contingent' worlds that base reality on "consistency" and you over come the 'paradoxes' that lead to the "incompleteness theorem" to allow for a reintroduction to a "logical positivist" approach to logic, math, AND, especially, science.

My theory actually requires this to show HOW we can logically derive physics, something that most cannot believe is possible and so have given up trying. I CAN show how relativity and QM, for instance combine. I also have a 'positive' way to 'reconstruct' the logic bottom up to explain the physics from "First Principles".

[DragonFly]

The Secret’s held in two locked boxes, see,
Each of which coffer holds the others key,
For is/not exhaust possibility.

Things first had to be possible to be
Before they could become reality;
So, since things are, there’s Possibility.

[BadgerJelly]

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.