Hey Günther, thanks for the comments.
On Jan 9, 6:43 am, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hmm - your real existing nothing is just a word without referent - like
> a null pointer.
> Q: "What is on the paper?"
> As answer you expect that what is written.
> As the paper is still blank:
> A: "Nothing."
> You are being returned a null pointer, not a metaphysical reference to
> balance, uniformity, symmetry or whatever.

What properties are plainly visible on the white paper which cause the
return? Duality, distinction, form? The white paper displays
uniformity, sameness, identical to properties of balance i.e., balance
of color, neutrality, equilibrium. Such are real and plainly observed
properties, not metaphysical. We nullify the distinction and form of
writing on paper (A. Nothing) in response to an observation of
something else (physical uniformity).

> Your concept of _nonexistence_ would then be a metaphysical null
> pointer. Attributing either concept some kind of "existence" is major
> metaphysical error IMHO.

Beyond the argument that nonexistence cannot "be", we can recognize
that the term nonexistence attempts to meaningfully reference or
identify an assumed potential that itself has no meaning. If I say non-
white I am referring to some other color, off white. If I draw or
metaphorically refer to an arrow, the arrow points to something, such
defines the meaningfulness of "arrow". What is a "metaphysical null
pointer" pointing to? Nonexistence? Something outside of the realm of
meaning? Such is not a meaningful statement or reference as there
aren't "somethings" outside of meaning. Nonexistence, metaphysical
null pointer, non-being, meaninglessness...any attempt to refer to
that which has no meaning commits a semantic error. What has no
meaning? Nonexistence or non-meaning cannot be referenced or pointed
in any use of meaning. It is a fundamental mistake simply to refer to
nonexistence, since the concept has no meaning whatsoever. Doing so is
merely a trick of language, a misnomer, a null pointer that isn't a
null pointer. We can and only refer to actual properties of nature or
real nothings: a nullification of form, a uniformity, sameness,
symmetry. Confusing nothing and nonexistence is thus is a major
"physical" error, albeit a very common one.

> > It isn't a cancellation of
> > properties or existence, it is a unification or synthesis into a
> > single form, which we see as nothing. Cook everything in the frig
> > together and you end up with one thing with far fewer properties. That
> > property-less "one" in mathematics is zero.
> These are all features of language. I recommend Niiniluoto's "Critical
> Scientific Realism" how to resolve these issues - indeed, how they have
> been resolved through diligent work of many philosophers (that does not
> mean that there is no disagreement anymore ;-))
I'd rather hear what of Niiniluoto you are referring to over a
reference to many esteemed philosophers. Eliminating the confusion
between nonexistence and real properties is made in defense of
scientific realism and actually even ends the debate.

> > converging toward an infinitely small value. What we are doing is
> > fragmenting zero, we are slicing it up into parts, and since our...

> You seem to have a certain preconception of what a number is; or at
> least develop a conception which one must not naturally share.

Symmetry math in no way effects the concept of number in classical
mathematics, instead it offers another way of seeing the same physical/
mathematical reality without finitivity or abstraction. However,
symmetry math is not disconnected from classical math. Our present
conclusion that the sum of all reals is indefinite is incorrect, made
in defense of classical math. In evaluation of the question, is zero
the sum of all reals?, if we don't preconceive the value of zero, and
genuinely consider zero as the sum of all reals based upon x + -x = 0,
then we are moved into the domain of symmetry math. We cannot say the
sum of all reals is only indefinite, or the sum of all physical things
is only an indefinite infinity, the sums are indefinite in cmath and
"zero" in smath.

Where the finitivity of cmath has led many to doubt the Universe is
infinite, smath and seeing the two types of order, grouping and
symmetry, reveals the interdependent relationship between finitivity
and infinity.

> > high symmetry internally while relative to zero they are perfect
> > asymmetry) and time evolves towards a whole other kind of order
> > (unity, balance, perfect symmetry) which is actually the infinite
> I suppose you do not mean the heat death of the universe. But what would
> perfect symmetry be but heat death?

Good, yes I DO mean the heat death of the universe, not the heat death
scenario where the universe expands endlessly without ever reaching
zero, rather a big rip type of future where time reaches a common zero
for mass, density, temperature, energy, gravity, volume, and time,
i.e., maximum entropy, equilibrium, symmetry (not maximum disorder).
Caldwell also describes the end of accelerating expansion as the
ultimate singularity. Maximum heat/energy is the pendulum swung all
the way to one side, to imbalance. Energy is a measurement or quantity
of improbability, the improbability of imbalance over balance. Entropy
always increases due to the improbability of imbalance over balance,
not the improbability of order over disorder (http://
everythingforever.com/st_order5.htm). Balance is a very powerful kind
of order, and each day in an expanding universe we move increasingly
nearer to the balance of zero and perfect symmetry. What would perfect
symmetry be? The default setting of reality, the inevitability of
being. What is classic physical reality? The fragmentations of zero,
the internal boundaries and differentations (+x, -x).

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to