Search ideas
1144 ideas match your query.:
Logical possibilities and possible world frameworks, only works for potential states "inside" the universe right? The state of there being something or nothing in the universe doesn't have a "causal start", because the fact of something existing is an "eternal property" of the universe.
What do you think of: it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.
A useful distinction in talking of non-existence and nothingness is nothingness as a quantifier and nothingness as an object. Nothingness as a quantifier, is the concept of a universe with no objects. This doesn't have any inherent contradictions in classical logic. It would simply be a world where all objects are subtracted, as in an empty set.
Nothing as an object is inherently paradoxical. Nothingness as an object is something without properties, but paradoxically therefore has the properties of at least:
1. Immutability: it can't change, because change requires something
2. Boundarylessness
3. Indeterminacy: undefined, without qualities
I kind of relate to Graham Priest in that existence and non-existence is dependent on each other - kind of like the ying-yang symbol. For something to "be", it must be distinguished from "not-being". It might therefore not really be a resolution to the problem. Just like the rabbit in the rabbit-duck illusion is dependent on the shape of the duck, non-existence is dependent on existence.
Wouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.
I misread your text. I originally read it as the whole mind is a program (or programs).
Wouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words, the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection on the one hand, and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.
If we talk about the quantifier nothing, you would look at the universe = all objects. So if you remove all objects the universe wouldn’t really «refer» to anything. But if you believe there exist such a thing as the object Nothingness, there could possibly exist a universe = Nothingness (as the object), which has some defined properties.
Workaround: have users email me for password reset for now. Re-evaluate when I have enough users to merit additional infrastructure for sending emails.
on the other
This part should be preceded by ‘on the one hand’. As in: ‘In other words, the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection on the one hand, and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.’
You marked your idea as a criticism but I don’t see where it conflicts with its parent. Explain?
Nothingness as a qunatifier
Typo. Consider revising your idea to resolve this criticism.
Nothingness as a qunatifier [sic], is the concept of a universe with no objects. This doesn't have any inherent contradictions in classical logic. It would simply be a world where all objects are subtracted, as in an empty set.
Wouldn’t the universe itself be an object, as would the set itself, so you’d never have an empty set anyway?
Wouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.
Wouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.
Wouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words the mind has a dual process of "explicit thoughts and conscious reflection" and "ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.
A useful distinction in talking of non-existence and nothingness is nothingness as a quantifier and nothingness as an object. Nothingness as a qunatifier, is the concept of a universe with no objects. This doesn't have any inherent contradictions in classical logic. It would simply be a world where all objects are subtracted, as in an empty set.
Nothing as an object is inherently paradoxical. Nothingness as an object is something without properties, but paradoxically therefore has the properties of at least:
1. Immutability: it can't change, because change requires something
2. Boundarylessness
3. Indeterminacy: undefined, without qualities
I kind of relate to Graham Priest in that existence and non-existence is dependent on each other - kind of like the ying-yang symbol. For something to "be", it must be distinguished from "not-being". It might therefore not really be a resolution to the problem. Just like the rabbit in the rabbit-duck illusion is dependent on the shape of the duck, non-existence is dependent on existence.
A useful distinction in talking of non-existence and nothingness is nothingness as a quantifier and nothingness as an object. Nothingness as a qunatifier, is the concept of a universe with no objects. This doesn't have any inherent contradictions in classical logic. It would simply be a world where all objects are subtracted, as in an empty set.
Nothing as an object is inherently paradoxical. Nothingness as an object is something without properties, but paradoxically therefore has the properties of at least:
1. Immutability: it can't change, because change requires something
2. Boundarylessness
3. Indeterminacy: undefined, without qualities
I kind of relate to Graham Priest in that existence and non-existence is dependent on each other - kind of like the ying-yang symbol. For something to "be", it must be distinguished from "not-being". It might therefore not really be a resolution to the problem. Just like the rabbit in the rabbit-duck illusion is dependent on the shape of the duck, non-existence is dependent on existence.
Superseded by #1123. This comment was generated automatically.
Sounds like she treats existence or nature or the law of identity as an ultimate bedrock. Foundationalism.
Superseded by #1090. This comment was generated automatically.
Sounds like she treats existence or nature as an ultimate bedrock. Foundationalism.
She only says that the law of identify rules nature, not that it explains nature’s existence.