FrostCloud Forums

FrostCloud Forums (http://www.frostcloud.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Philosophy (http://www.frostcloud.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Does Nothingness exist? (http://www.frostcloud.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24201)

jdp 03-12-2010 08:17 PM

Existence doesn't require human experience, does it?

I think, therefore I am .. but if I don't think, I still am. I continue to occupy space, and exist, whether or not I am conscious.

Nenad 03-12-2010 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdp (Post 447794)
Existence doesn't require human experience, does it?

I think, therefore I am .. but if I don't think, I still am. I continue to occupy space, and exist, whether or not I am conscious.


Maybe, but I wasn't talking about that. I just said that I believe that when a person dies or before that person was born, that "state" is by the nonexistence. I'm not sure you'll understand but..try.

jdp 03-12-2010 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nenad (Post 447795)
Maybe, but I wasn't talking about that. I just said that I believe that when a person dies or before that person was born, that "state" is by the nonexistence. I'm not sure you'll understand but..try.

I understand and agree. Within the context of human perspective, existence has limitations.

The original poster, however, illuminated a paradox that has since been resolved.

PoseidonsNet 03-12-2010 09:57 PM

Quote:

There is no less or more
So i suggest you ask ms to remove these characters from the keyboard, then
">" "<"

I got distinctions for my hons papers on QM
I explained it to the phil of sci prof.

What none of you can do is realise that logic is just one facet of the universe,

Quote:

There is no less or more
:toofunny:

Quote:

Zero isn't nothing
:toofunny:

Quote:

More from less is absolutely ILLOGICAL
agreed

And yet we SEE it happen every single day
the expanding universe, evolution, birth, chemistry,
more from less is how we got from the abacus to the PC

i)
did the pc evolve out of the abacus?
yes

ii)
is the pc more than the abacus
yes

therefore
we get

iii)
more from less


I suggest doing a course in philosophy 101, basic logic,
its called a syllogism

its how all thinking and computing works


SO
nothingness DOES exist when it comes to your own life?
but nowhere else?

how anthropromorphic can one get!

now i understand the frustration, because mysticism is difficult to grasp, much like zen, one grasps it by not actually trying to grasp it

and i can asure you
as a phil hons grad
this thread is in total earnest

you error is to throw your hands up and take personal pot-shots at me, instead of looking at the illogical nature of the statements you are both making,

you are trying the quick-fix quick-snappy-answer response
and look at the statements of yours that i have quoted

Quote:

There is no less or more

Quote:

Zero isn't nothing
just look at them in isolation from the rest of what has been said

Nenad 03-12-2010 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet (Post 447798)
And yet we SEE it happen every single day
the expanding universe, evolution, birth, chemistry,
more from less is how we got from the abacus to the PC

You just don't get it do you? You confuse more from less with complex from simple, and it really makes you look...I mean, really...you look stupid.

Quote:

i)
did the pc evolve out of the abacus?
yes
YES.



Quote:

ii)
is the pc more than the abacus
yes
YES.

Quote:

therefore
we get

iii)
more from less
NO. Indeed, you confuse more from less with complex from simple...I mean, it is unbelievable that you keep doing that. Again, evolution, universe, PC, video games, movies, music, cars, cloth, snickers, televition, IT IS ALL LIKE COMPLEX FROM SIMPLE WHICH IS NOT, I REPEAT NOT THE SAME AS MORE FROM LESS. Try to...remember of this.


Quote:

SO
nothingness DOES exist when it comes to your own life?
but nowhere else?

Yes, I think I was clear.

PoseidonsNet 03-23-2010 08:37 PM

pernickety flibbertigibbet are we?

How can you suggest that 'more from less' does not apply to complex from simple?

if A is more complex than B, it follows that B is less complex than A.

When we say something is more complex,
we say it is 'MORE' complex.

More complexity out of less complexity is more from less.

*taps his head*
{these Serbians are ...}
...

And so YOU are allowed to be nothing, but other things are not?
What makes you think you are so special?

Its well known that aTheists are condemned to the second death,
its good you know what you are buying into.

Given your subconscious mendacity in ad hominem refusal to understand
that the very basic phoneme 'MORE' applies to the concept 'COMPLEXITY'
just as it does to any other concept,
I Shudder not in surprise.

Igzibeher

Nenad 03-24-2010 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet
How can you suggest that 'more from less' does not apply to complex from simple?

When we say something is more complex,
we say it is 'MORE' complex.

More complexity out of less complexity is more from less.

And so YOU are allowed to be nothing, but other things are not?
What makes you think you are so special?

Ok, let me try convincing you via this way, pure logic let me tell you. Let us say there are 1000 balls, equal size, on the white background. Let them be positioned rightly, says, same center distances, like here >

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/d/d/6/...07.svg.med.png

Lets call this state simple, can we? 5 seconds after, these balls moved, a transformation occured and they formed this display >

http://vault.hanover.edu/~altermattw...dots/dots4.jpg

Can we call this state complex, can we? Tell me PN, can we say that this second display looks more complex than the first one? Why is it more complex? Lets say they aren't the same size now, some got bigger for the sake of some getting smaller, some remained as they were.

http://www.dezignwithaz.com/images/g...all-decals.png

So, the situation is next - COMPLEX from SIMPLE, not MORE from LESS, 1000 balls were at the begining, 1000 are at the end, no change, no EXTRA. Now, the only way we have extra here or more from less is in the face of information present. Each ball has its properties.

Now, lets say I heard of those 2 displays and I asked you to provide me with the data needed in order for me to translate this displays inside 3d coordinate system in 3ds max, x-y-z. So, what would you do?

DISPLAY 1

- 1000 balls;
- same size/diameters (1unit )
- same distance/centers between (6 units)

Indeed, all I need. 2 coordinates would differ, one would be the same. Piece of cake.

DISPLAY 2

- 1000 balls
*you'd have to mark each ball;
*you'd have to provide the diameter info for each ball;
*you'd have to give x and y for each ball;

... a lot of info a lot of time to make it...

But, in no other way we have MORE from LESS here. Ball number is the same in both cases. Distance and substance "volume" remained the same, one gets bigger while the other side gets smaller, thus, NO CHANGE.

Do you understand NOW????? PURE LOGIC.

(p.s. certain things here go without sayng, so I hope you won't go on with that)

Nenad 03-24-2010 01:06 AM

Even in the example above there is no info difference between those 2 displays. In both cases, each ball individualy has x-y-z(different for each ball in each of the displays) info in 3ds max, each ball individualy has diameter info(...). So, per ball, the data is the same in both cases and so the true data of both translated displays. One doesn't have more info than the other.

Nenad 03-24-2010 01:23 AM

Quality and quantity. The variation of first. Forgeting x-y-z, by looking at diameter and distance quality only, one is constant, the other is variable.

Mike Dubbeld 03-26-2010 03:42 AM

Whoa! More correctly does nothingness exit to WHO. The very presupposition of such a question about nothingness ASS umes that if it did or does not can be known by something. Depending on the properties of that 'something' determines the existence of nothingness or not. You think you know who you are. I say you do not. You think you are your mind and as such you believe if nothingness can be known it will be due to the ability of a mind to know such a thing. I deny this is true. In fact, this subject is so stupid, I could easily state the followning as a mind question to baffel all the rest of you 'minds' - Nothingness is in the eye of the beholder.' As in what you call nothingness another mind would want to argue about. Since you are not your mind in the first place it makes the question all the more that much absurd.

ABCDEF GEEEEEEEEE it is so simple. Maybe you should go to school to unlearn the baloney you learned.

Mike Dubbeld 04-16-2010 03:24 AM

What you just said and 2 dollars will get you a cup of regular coffee at Borders Books. Usless drivel. Good for you. If 'you' know so much philosophy one would think you could do much better. Since 'you' don't know who you are to begin with it is however expected.
As is so often said - I would be more elegant but I simply don't have the time. LOL. When 'you' show me something other than drivel I will respond with more since that is unlikely ------seeeeeeeeeee yaaaaaaaa!

shot 05-28-2010 03:11 AM

Nothing
 
Does the "nothing" of the doughnut hole define the something that is the doughnut?
If so then nothing is something.
The word "nothing" is used to describe something...the word "nothing" is the confusion, if there is confusion.
The word "nothing" is simply an attempt to describe, the other.
The universe and time and all that is has been and will be, are held together by holes that are the something we call "nothing".
Even i get that.

Mike Dubbeld 05-28-2010 04:43 AM

Pretty funny shot. What you say presuposes that you know who it is that 'gets that.' And just who might that be? For there to be a nothing or something requires a perceiver of it. Neither can exist without an entity to classify something as being nothing or something. Its not about nothing or something. It is about the perceiver that does any such classification. What precisely IS this perceiver? In the west it is a common belief that the mind is the perceiver. This is false. All that the mind is is a record/memory of phenomena perceived in a particular way by consciousness which IS the actual perceiver. In other words consciousness is the perceiver of things from the senses and the mind. The mind simply captures conceptions OF any such perceptions in memory and biases such perceptions had by consciousness according to the experiences a person (mind/personality) has had growing up in life. We are no more our mind than you are you toaster or car. The mind is an inanimate object. A collection of memories biased by ego in a particular way.

Regardless whether you believe this or not, it brings home the point that for there to be something or nothing depends on the entity that ascribes any such thing to any such thing. What something is very much depends on the thing doing the classifying of what that something is.

Its about 'even I get that' - its aout the "I" that 'get that'. Not the something or nothing.

Russell1A 06-02-2010 07:00 AM

There is a cost of going from the simple to the complex, which might answer the point of getting more from less. More complex means a local decrease in entropy which can only occur by accepting a greater increase in entropy in the system as a whole. Hence the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the answer to that problem.

Russell

PoseidonsNet 06-02-2010 06:54 PM

more time

;-j


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:01 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network