Hi Ham > Your efforts to disprove my premises show me that I have at least > intrigued > you. (This is the third message you've posted to me, the other two being > repeats.)
DM: I am just trying to see where our agreements end and differences begin. >> I'd prefer: >> everything comes from nothing >> both the undifferentiated and differentiated exist >> therefore the dualism of number 3 is unnecessary Your "preferred" syllogism refutes > common logic. DM: No it doesn't. I may fail to fully express myself but there is nothing very difficult in coming up with a different set of assumption that are logical. The idea that logic would be a way to settle these differences I am trying to explain strikes me as absurd. Have you nothing better to say? > 1) "Everything comes from nothing. > There is no magic in the world by which nothing produces something -- not > in > natural science, physics, or mathematics. About this Wikipedia says: > "Nothing comes from nothing is a philosophical expression of a thesis > first > argued by Parmenides, often stated in its Latin form: ex nihilo nihil fit. > Today, the idea is loosely associated with the laws of conservation of > mass > and energy. In logic, nothing is represented by the empty set, and it is > trivially true that no thing (any defined concept or element) can be > extracted from such a set. DM: There is a book by George Steiner called Grammars of Creation about this topic covering every period of human cultural history and how this concept of creation from nothing has been understood, so I beg to differ. > > 2) "Both the undifferentiated and differentiated exist." > Can you provide an example of an existent that is not differentiated? The > statement is simply not true. DM: Everything is differentiated, yet all experience is an undivided one, and in this way the Same. > > 3) "Therefore the dualism of number 3 is unnecessary." > This contradicts your #2 which says that "both the undifferentiated and > the > differentiated exist." DM: Yes as one and the same, as a whole that can be divided, if you want to see a contradiction here you can, try and grasp what I am saying and then argue why your conception is better, the idea of refutation here is inappropriate and silly. Try this, a single cell can differentiate itself into a whole and very differentiated body. > I stated that Essence is the integration of difference because it is the > only instance of non-differentiation. You can argue that Essence is > hypothetical, but your assertions do not prove that my conclusion is > untrue. DM: I gave an an alternative not a refutation. I dislike your suggestion because it requires someother realm where the many has a single essencial source. Such a division seems unnecessary. Why do you think we need it? I suggest that we experience the unity of existence-reality so we need no inexperienceable realm. > > You may "prefer" to believe there is no metaphysical reality, as many > nihilists do, but you cannot logically account for existence by saying > that > it is derived from nothing. DM: Your logic makes assumptions about nothing that I do not. Another logic (set of assumptions) is possible. Otherwise send your theory to Nature for peer review. Without a primary source, either there is no > existence or there has always been existence. (If it is any comfort, some > cosmologists subscribe to the latter notion.) DM: Correct, they do, and the source is Nothing. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
