On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:24 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > *>1. Premise: No thing (nothing) exists.* >> *2. By "1" it follows that "0 things exist" is true. * >> > > If > > " > "0 things exist" is true > " then "0 things exits" exists; but if its true then it can't exist > exist. > So any true or false statement is enough to destroy the philosopher's nothing? You presume there can be no true facts about nothing? If there are no true facts about nothing, what preserves the nothing? E.g., if true can become false then "nothing exists = true" could become "nothing exists = false" > > >> > >> *Further it also follows that* >> ** [...] >> > > Nothing can follow something that doesn't exist. And two can play this > game, even if you found a way to make it work that very fact that you made > it work would only prove that your nothing was not nothing enough because > it still had the potential of producing something. > > I guess what I am asking is: Can nothing be defined without presupposing logic? Can nothing be defined without presupposing math? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
