The Value of nothing is everything

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Quantum Quack, Jun 4, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. nicholas1M7 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,417

    That would be the kind of philosophical wishful thinking pushed by that verbose windbag, Plato. Its called a form or standard. An exercise in philosophical futility by which to judge all things such as beauty or justice.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Absane Rocket Surgeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,989
    I think "Earth's life forms require the sun for energy" is the same as saying "Earth's life forms value the sun for energy." What is wrong with that?

    But it seems to me that real value and subjective value have a common overlap in definitions (though the application of the definitions may turn out to be non-overlapping).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    No.

    No.

    No we can't.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Value is a human concept. The uiniverse doesn't care about our values and it has no values, because the universe simply is. Existence is natural and importance has no hierarchy whatsoever.
     
  8. Absane Rocket Surgeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,989
    Truthseeker.. you are missing the point.

    I can define asdf to mean something. I can define real value to mean something. You keep thinking in terms of human value, I am thinking in terms of a higher value.
     
  9. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    There's no higher value.
     
  10. Absane Rocket Surgeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,989
    Well what I am trying to get to (as I realized just a minute ago) is that there is human value, which is a subset of something higher.

    Please tell me what this "higher" thing is. And it isn't necessarily omniparient or an omniparent.
     
  11. c7ityi_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,924
    you forget you are a part of the universe, you are the universe, so universe has value, the universe cares about values. even less conscious beings like animals and plants might have some idea of value.
     
  12. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    c7ityi_, that's not what I'm talking about here...
     
  13. Absane Rocket Surgeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,989
    I think you are missing the point, too. And does this have anything with your "law of infinity?" I still want to know what it is.
     
  14. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    qq always creates the huge threads!
     
  15. genep Guest

    NOTHING TO DISCUSS:
    It was all figured out over 5000 years ago: back then sages called your "nothing" thoughts; and they called everything "ATMAN", Samadhi that is the infinite BLISS of thoughtless-Silence, dreamless-sleep, which is the word, thought, death.
    OR as you say: the value of nothing, thoughts, is Everything, Atman.
     
  16. stanleyg Cranky old fool Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    42
    First, I concur with your statement. The proof resides in numbers. Zero is the only whole number. The relationship of any other number is a fraction of zero.

    Permit me to apply math to sustain my logic.

    Base Ten has 10 increments to reach the next zero.

    0=Terminal Start
    1 = 10%
    2 = 20%
    3 = 30%
    4 = 40%
    5 = 50%
    6 = 60%
    7 = 70%
    8 = 80%
    9 = 90%
    10 = 100% Terminal Stop

    Base two has only 2 increments to reach the next zero.

    0 = Terminal Start
    1 = 50%
    10 = 100% Terminal Stop

    When we count we are actually counting how many increments it takes for us to achieve or reach zero or nothing.

    The conceptual connotation of some (thing or one) denotes a fraction.

    Conversely, the connotation of no (thing or one) denotes a whole.

    In other words, to be all (thing or one) we must surpass being some (thing or one).

    This principle of reasoning is known as Alpha & Omega (i.e. first and last).
     
  17. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    stanleyg:

    "First, I concur with your statement. The proof resides in numbers. Zero is the only whole number. The relationship of any other number is a fraction of zero."

    If we take zero to mean nothing, then I am afraid your position is critically flawed. For what is nothing divided by anything? Still nothing, is it not? Because nothing cannot be divided. To divide nothing is to not to divide. Therefore, zero cannot have a fraction, as a fraction is a division of the whole.

    "0=Terminal Start
    1 = 10%
    2 = 20%
    3 = 30%
    4 = 40%
    5 = 50%
    6 = 60%
    7 = 70%
    8 = 80%
    9 = 90%
    10 = 100% Terminal Stop"

    What does this prove? That 10 percent of 10 is 1? That 20 percent is 2? That if you count from nothingness to 10, you have ten? WEll that is rather simple, is it not? What is 10 + 0. 10, because you are not adding at all. You are simply stating "10" in a round-about way which violates the Principle of Parsimony.

    "0 = Terminal Start
    1 = 50%
    10 = 100% Terminal Stop"

    Would not it be...

    0 = "Terminal start" (What does this even mean, really?)
    1 = 50 percent
    2 = 100 percent terminal start (again, what does this mean really?)

    And again, what does this prove?

    "When we count we are actually counting how many increments it takes for us to achieve or reach zero or nothing."

    How do you figure? When we count, we are figuring out how many numbers it is to a certain number. But yes, all numbers can be spoken of as how far they are from nothingness, but this does not seem to be anything but to say that somethingness is the opposite of nothingness.

    "The conceptual connotation of some (thing or one) denotes a fraction.

    Conversely, the connotation of no (thing or one) denotes a whole."

    Again, I must disagree: Emptiness can be neither whole nor fraction, for if it is either it ceases to be nothingness. In order to be whole, it must be something - in order to be a fraction, it must be something.

    1/4th of 1 = .25. Conversely, 4 times .25 = 1. Note that in each case we are dealing with -something-, rather than nothing. Let us deal with nothing.

    What is 1/4th of nothing? Well, nothing. What is 4 times 1/4th of nothing? Well, nothing. You cannot get anything out of nothing. Nor does the entire process of fractions nor wholes work when we apply them to nothing.

    In essence: Your math is flawed and I think this is due to an a conceptually wrong view of what nothingness entails.

    "In other words, to be all (thing or one) we must surpass being some (thing or one). "

    Actually, to be all necessitates one must encompass all things that compose oneself. Infinity necessitates the existence of all things beneath it.
     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Stanleyg:
    I can see where you are heading with your post and reckon you are going to have a hell of time trying to explain it fully.
    Princes arguements are quite sound in the context he is working from.
    For example any number can be deemed to equal one ie. 1138 units equals 1 unit with the value of 1138, so one plus one can equal 2276. Of course it is all a matter of context.
    Prince James:
    Welcome back!!
     
  19. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Quack:

    Thank you! And talk to you momentarily in PM. Didn't see them till now!
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Is it worth suggesting that with out zero mathematics makes no sense?
     
  21. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Quack:

    Actually, zero was absent from Greek mathematics, and they seemed to have gotten along just fine. The notion of zero was a later development and, in many ways, an abuse. It leads us to some absurdities in modern math, such as:

    Negative numbers (if zero is to be considered zero, anything less than zero is logically impossible)
    That zero can be meaningful used in any computation. For why is it zero for 8 to be multipled by 0? Are not we simply saying here, if we take nothingness and zero to be one, that 8 is to not be mutliplied at all?
    That 0^0 = 1.

    Et cetera, et cetera.

    That math might be better off -without- zero, as math can only speak of -something-, may well be something I'd suggest.
     
  22. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Quack:

    In your first post you speak of all things having a relationship with other. This has been something I have considered often in recent months, for it seems to me that in an infinite existence, in infinite time, that everything will have a chance to interact with everything else at least once.
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    It does indeed raise some interesting philosophical questions.

    And also probably our main reason for failure to understand the reason why existance exists. We have paradoxed ourselves into a corner that we are going to have a hell of a time digging our selves out of.

    When reading some of the very old Greek philo, I see some terrific validity yet as we have evolved scientifically we have discounted some of it or replaced it with scientifically founded philosophies. And of course the question: "What if the science is wrong?" begs for an answer.

    The issue of relative time for example and it's cause being the invariant speed of light etc etc....has a direct effect on philosophical understanding.

    Any way this is just me waffling.....
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page