Fence
Latinum Hoarder,
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 1816
|
|
Re: hmmm, hard question 4 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 4
|
|
Matt,
My black pen is 'not red'. Does that mean it 'has an identity of' red? (I still don't know where you are getting this peculiar language from) No. It's just not red. It's not even the 'inverse' of being red or anything like that - redness is just not among its properties. Similarly, none of the properties of everything in existence are shared by the empty set because the empty set has no properties. This doesn't mean some weird relationship exists between the empty set and the set of things that exist - the empty set is just empty and that is pretty much all there is to say about it here. (Assuming I am at all capturing what you want us to think you mean by '0 Everything', which doesn't conventionally mean much at all)
Can this end now?
|
|
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re: hmmm, hard question 4 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 0
|
|
[blockquote]Matt,
My black pen is 'not red'. Does that mean it 'has an identity of' red? (I still don't know where you are getting this peculiar language from) No. It's just not red. It's not even the 'inverse' of being red or anything like that - redness is just not among its properties. [/blockquote]
Black is not red. Black doesn™t have the identity of Red. However, that example throws my argument off track illogically. Something that involves Everything involves more than just something. In this case, ˜color™ is something. You™re using something/color to relate and allegory Everything. In my thread I asked ˜ 0 Everything = Everything™, regretfully, forgot that people see Everything in the terms of something, Even parts of Everything, and that Everything is already Everything. So dividing Everything would violate the concept itself, and the division would become something, not Everything.
From here I argue Nothingness does not have an identity of something, that is, ANYTHING. And there is a distinction between what it ˜is™ and what its ˜identity™ is. I will end my argument that nothingness is the End of Everything but therefore it cannot have an Identity with anything in Everything.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re: hmmm, hard question 4 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
However, that example throws my argument off track illogically.
No it doesn't! lmfao... why did you throw that last word in there?!?!... that statement would have been coherent and correct without it...
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The kind of philosophy one chooses depends upon what kind of person one is. ~ J.G. Fichte
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re: hmmm, hard question 4 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 0
|
|
ok.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re: hmmm, hard question 4 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
[quote1205349990=MattVenom]
ok.
[/quote1205349990]
2 sentence debunking of your claim:
'Everything' just is the sum of all things, 'Not Everything' is the negation of Everything. Negations are not identical to the thing they are negating (via the law of non-contradiction). Q.E.D.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The kind of philosophy one chooses depends upon what kind of person one is. ~ J.G. Fichte
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re: hmmm, hard question 4 Years ago
|
Karma: 0
|
|
[quote1209123190=MattVenom]
And there is a distinction between what it ˜is™ and what its ˜identity™ is.
[/quote1209123190]
Therefore, Hypersonic, I take it that you are too unintelligent to comprehend English. Either that or you are a bloody jerk who flames people without actually bothering to understand their argument.
As for Fence, in case Matt didn't make it clear enough, your example is a false analogy which is so obviously invalid that I am surprised that our beloved 10 star Hypersonic didn't point it out.
As for the actual question, I believe that nothing defines everything, but knowing only the concept of nothing would not give you the concept of everything. Nothing and everything do not share a causal relationship, but knowing nothing would allow you to identify parts of everything. It all depends on your definition of identity.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
