I have responses to everything in your latest post. However, I don’t wish to aggravate you excessively. I acknowledge your frustration with and distaste for my brand of dialectics. I too have been having fun during our exchanges. I’m willing to stop here. I don’t want your already hot blood to boil over. I know that you, being a trial lawyer, have much work to do, and
thus you don’t need aggravating distractions.

As you know from experience, l ask you a lot of questions about what you think and why. I think you’re both incorrect and unjust in your accusation. I try to interpret what you tell me about yourself, and then I announce my interpretation. I don’t put words into your mouth.

If you need a long break from me, I’m happy to let you have it. I look forward to dialoguing with you in future.

Best Wishes

Why do you think identity has nothing to do with existence? Do you think you can persist if your identity is separated from existence? — ucarr

If you have no identity, you don't exist, right?

I don't even take myself to have an identity. — AmadeusD

Your are like a mirror? You only reflect back some other being's face? When there's no being before you, you have no face of your own?

this question has nothing to do with my claim about the Universe. — AmadeusD

Sorry, please repeat your claim about the universe.

If there's some special physics use of 'nothingness' I'm not using it. — AmadeusD

Okay. You refer to the no possible worlds definition of nothingness.

Perhaps an infinite-in-time Universe can be posited. — AmadeusD

This describes my infinite universe with no opening.

We do not have logical infinites in reality, only in concept. This is why I brought in metaphysics: It is a metaphysical claim, not a logical one — AmadeusD

You think logic and metaphysics distinct. Do you think them disjoint?

Maths deals with infinites, but requires things like "numbers are infinite" to support the type of logic you're wanting in here. There's nothing ipso facto wrong with this, because as noted, infinites can be dealt with - but they cannot (it seems) give us reasons in the real world. — AmadeusD

Since civil engineers use calculus to design bridges, why do you think calculations employing infinite values have no practical applications?

A Universe with no opening has no temporal boundary. That is what I indicated... — AmadeusD

Some current theories of the origin of the universe allow for a quantum gravity mediated unification of QM and Relativity. In some of these theories, allowance is made for time without a beginning.

Exactly what I was to be wasn't yet determined. — AmadeusD

Your parents carried your dna long before you were born. There would be no you without it. So, did you start to be before you were born?

I'm not sure how you want to relate this to 'the universe' though? — AmadeusD

We've been talking about things beginning. No universe, no you. If so, then maybe you know something about the universe's beginning. If you don't know about it, maybe it's because there was no beginning; maybe the universe has always been incomplete.

P implying Q doesn't give us anything about existence, beginnings or anything else. — AmadeusD

p⟹q What about parents imply Quincy, their son?

It seems like you want arguments, but present only irrelevant semi-philosophical-sounding points? — AmadeusD

You ever heard about a wise guy who's connected? It's all about being connected, man. Arguments, likewise, are all about connections. You've never had an argument about something important?

What is possible" is what metaphysics deals with outside the constraints of empirical observation. — AmadeusD

Okay. So metaphysical to you means abstraction.

If you told me that the act of selling a couple of oranges must have some analogy to a Dolphin headbutting an Orca, i'd say the same thing. There is no analogy. — AmadeusD

Okay, above is an argument: you think my analogical pairing of dialectic and courtroom is faulty.

The ancient Greeks used the term dialectic to refer to various methods of reasoning and discussion in order to discover the truth.

Why do you think the above definition has no analogy with the purpose in a courtroom?

In a court case we are not dealing with hypotheticals, metaphysics and speculation on the nature of reality. — AmadeusD

The courtroom does deal with the nature of reality. Someone was murdered. The court wants to know who committed the murder. That's an investigation into reality.

Socrates was put on trial in a state courtroom in Athens. He was charged with disrespecting the gods approved by the state. He was sentenced to death and executed. Why do you think the courtroom takes no interest in reasoned arguments about the truth?

If you assume a universe with no opening never existed, then you think a universe that opens was preceded by nothing... — ucarr

Nope. I just think exactly what I said. I commit to nothing else and I'm not required to. A universe is an event. If the event never begins, it doesn't occur. End of that. — AmadeusD

Why do you think you're exempt from providing a supporting argument to your declarations? — ucarr

I did. This is a circle you tend to go in throughout all exchanges I've seen you have. — AmadeusD

The argument is that something with no beginning never began, and so does not exist. That is an argument. It is a sound one... a metaphysical eternity is conceptually empty. — AmadeusD

Do you think you began with your parent's dna combined at fertilization? If not, where and when did you begin? If p⟹q, does q begin at p? If not, where and when does q begin?

In your use of "metaphysical" are you referring to abstract rules attempting to describe how the universe is structured and governed formally, or, are you, on the other hand, referring to a postulated non-material realm of cosmic mind that structures and governs formally?

Our dialectical debate has something in common with a courtroom trial. — ucarr

No, it does not. There is no analogy between the two that can hold. — AmadeusD

Here's an example of you making a declaration with no supporting argument. I say that in the courtroom, as in the debate room, each side must support its declarations with a supporting logical argument and or facts. I stand by my claim as factually correct. I encourage you to present independently verifiable facts that refute my claim.

Can you show logically why existence needs a beginning? Consider A=A. Where does it begin? — ucarr

A=A is an identity concept. It has nothing to do with existence and says absolutely nothing about eternity. — AmadeusD

Why do you think identity has nothing to do with existence? Do you think you can persist if your identity is separated from existence? If you do, explain how this is possible.

If the facts are that we have a Universe, and there is no logical move open to nothingness which results in a Universe (which there isn't - "fluctuations in nothing" is nonsense. I presume 180 is trying to be helpful to you there). — AmadeusD

You're incorrectly combining the scientific quantum vacuum, which is subject to physical laws with the philosophical nothingness, which is subject to nothing.

We have a Universe. We cannot assume it was "beginning-less" because there is no logical way for that to be the case. That does not mean it isn't true. It means you cannot support it with reason. — AmadeusD

You seem to think there are true things not logical. Well considered responses to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says, "We think undecidable statements generated by first-order axiomatic systems are true, although we can't prove them within the axiomatic system that generated them. Is this what you're saying?

...the concept of a Universe with no boundaries along any axes (i.e space, time, expansive capacity etc..) is essentially a meaningless failure to adequate understand the nature of "something". — AmadeusD

Why do you think a universe with no opening also has no boundaries? Don't distinct planetary systems have boundaries? Why do you think a universe with no opening has no discrete geometry?

The... only, question we can ask here is "What is outside the Universe?" — AmadeusD

Why do you think universe with an outside is not, by definition, a contradiction?

In your mathematical analogies do you consider "0" to be nothing (in some sense)? — jgill

Yes, I do. I characterize zero as strategic absence within math. It's function also extends to what I call, "not yet, but presently accountable." This refers to human intentions looking forward to how abstractly designed outcomes blossom over time.

Can we conclude that presently AI differs from human cognition fundamentally in one obvious way? The difference is that humans, unlike AI, perceive and process information through the lens of a persistent self continuously concerned with ongoing survival. This tells us that human cognition is constrained information processing whereas AI is pure information processing.

I will speculate vaguely that the lens of persistent self attributes both positives and negatives to the character of human information processing vis-à-vis AI's pure information processing.

Yes, this is another claim I can use to argue the possibility of eternal universe.

If you assume a universe with no opening never existed, then you think a universe that opens was preceded by nothing, — ucarr

Nope. I just think exactly what I said. I commit to nothing else and I'm not required to. A universe is an event. If the event never begins, it doesn't occur. End of that. — AmadeusD

Why do you think you're exempt from providing a supporting argument to your declarations? Our dialectical debate has something in common with a courtroom trial. Therein each side must support its claims with arguments potentially falsifiable.

If the event never begins, it doesn't occur. End of that. — AmadeusD

Can you show logically why existence needs a beginning? Consider A=A. Where does it begin?

If you think the universe was preceded by nothing, then you must explain how nothing transitioned into something. — ucarr

Not really, no. If the facts are that we have a Universe, and there is no logical move open to nothingness which results in a Universe (which there isn't - "fluctuations in nothing" is nonsense. I presume 180 is trying to be helpful to you there). — AmadeusD

As I read you, you agree that something cannot come from nothing. Also, you mention, "If the facts are that we have a Universe..." followed by you declaring, "...'fluctuations in nothing' is nonsense." In conclusion, I think you believe the universe real, and you don't think it came from nothing. So, you know the universe is fundamentally something. You also know it didn't start itself in nothing because to begin presumes an existing something.

Perhaps 'quantum uncertainty' ... such that "nothing" necessarily fluctuates and (at some threshold) a density of fluctuations – (contingent) not-nothing aka "something" – happens. :nerd: — 180 Proof

If your "quantum uncertainty" is alternate wording for "quantum vacuum" with its altering energy and virtual particles bound by physical laws, then we're agreeing that this state makes a close approach to nothing. The binding physical laws, however, keep it within the natural world. The methodological naturalism of the scientific community holds it firmly within reality. Nothing within physics is distinct from philosophical nothing.

That you're asking me this proves it wrong. A Universe with no 'opening' never opened, so does not exist, logically. — AmadeusD

If you assume a universe with no opening never existed, then you think a universe that opens was preceded by nothing, (this stipulated on the basis of the ancillary assumption the universe is the totality of existence). If you think the universe was preceded by nothing, then you must explain how nothing transitioned into something.

If you're trying to posit a metaphysical eternity, I'm with 180. This is nonsense. — AmadeusD

Regarding your use of "metaphysical" in context here, "Do you mean foundational abstract premises and principles nevertheless a part of the natural world? Or do you mean a non-physical realm?

Do you see errors? — ucarr

I see an argument wherein an argument is not needed. — 180 Proof

My argument is the self-evident argument to which you refer. I don't imagine myself presenting original thinking. I'm recognizing that the self-evident argument is all that's needed to answer the question.

Proposing the self-evident argument as the sufficient argument agrees with your statement: "...nothing negates or prevents existence." We're both saying that reality is fundamentally something; a world equal to nothing is impossible.

Descartes declares, "I think, therefore I am." He does this in order to launch a chain of reasoning towards the conclusion: "God's existence is necessary." — ucarr

My simple variation on Descartes' Cogito undertakes a much easier task: establish that there is not nothing because the question, "Why is there not nothing?" was asked. Obviously, if a question is asked, there exists a questioner asking it. This means there's at least one existing thing, the questioner. Therefore, there is not nothing. — ucarr

"Existence" as such is presupposed and not proven. "Why not nothing?" As I've pointed out already, (because) nothing negates or prevents existence. — 180 Proof

I say that, "One cannot reason to existence." Reasoning presupposes existence, however. As for concluding existence cannot be proven, I'm less sanguine on that conclusion than you, chiefly because each human individual has a tautological-identity certainty of existence. I don't suppose the state of being's lack of proof allows you to doubt your own existence. If so, wouldn't that be taking solipsism one step further, "My skepticism is so extreme, I doubt even myself." ( I do suppose your pun on nothing is unintentional. Assuming the pun, the sentence is paradoxical.)

I think my upshot here regarding our views on existence vs. nothingness says, "They stand just about equal."

..."the cogito" is neither sound nor a proof [... of God] — 180 Proof

I'm not seeking to prove God's existence by means of the cogito alone.* I think, however, that my argument from the asking of a question to the verification of at least one existing questioner is both valid and sound. Do you see errors?

*The heart of my reasoning for God's existence lies within the verbiage that earned another one of your WTFs.

Descartes declares, "I think, therefore I am." He does this in order to launch a chain of reasoning towards the conclusion: "God's existence is necessary."

My simple variation on Descartes' Cogito undertakes a much easier task: establish that there is not nothing because the question, "Why is there not nothing?" was asked. Obviously, if a question is asked, there exists a questioner asking it. This means there's at least one existing thing, the questioner. Therefore, there is not nothing.

My variation on Descartes' Cogito goes as follows: If A⟹B, with A=Asking a question, and B=If A, then someone exists, so C, with C=There is not nothing because A.

Can you show a logical flaw in the above chain of reasoning?

...Cogito, ergo sum can only prove the questioner is "real" which it doesn't even do that because all it does is use sleight of hand word play to cause the reader to accept a belief they already believe. Without answering the questions what "existence", "thinking", or what "existing" means you can't prove there is an "I"... — dclements

Show how no elaboration of the meaning of existence and thinking refutes: If A⟹B, with A=Asking a question, and B=If A, then someone exists. Sidebar: Even if you ignore the existence of the questioner, still, something exists, the question. We know this because the cause of my cogito variation is my response to, "Why is there not nothing?" If the question exists, then there's at least one existing thing, and that refutes nothingness.

Perhaps you're proceeding from an argument based on logical validity alone not proving facts of reality.

Logical validity, i.e., correct logical form, plus a sound argument, i.e., a true premise, proves a fact of reality. I reaffirm that my premise is true and my logical form is correct.

My counter claim - From my understanding of things I have found an understanding of this thing you named "God". Then, by your premise I will not be able to preserve my understanding of "God" - this I reject by my claim. — Pieter R van Wyk

This is a natural way to proceed with your life, not strictly by faith, but instead with understanding included. I belong to this set.

There are but few believers who don't vacillate between reason and faith; perhaps I should better say there has been but one on earth.

Formalism are vacuous and irrelevent with respect claims about the (non-abstract) world. — 180 Proof

You seem to be saying math and logic have no practical applications.

Gödel showed us that within all sufficient formal systems, you'll get a statement like this one, "This sentence is not provable." If it's provable, it's false (contradiction); if it's not provable, it's true (meaning it's a true, unprovable statement, i.e., undecidable). This is proof of permanent unprovability. — ucarr

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem ended Hilbert's project for organizing all math logic into one universal system. This is a practical application of Gödel's logic.

Cite a non-trivial example of a nonfictional religious text. — 180 Proof

Let's suppose all of your scriptural investigations are correct: all of your encounters have been with religious texts that are demonstrable fictions. — ucarr

My argument centers on the logic of the infinite series to integral sum. This container, being infinite, contains all possible verifications of scriptural fiction. As you know, this infinity of verifications doesn't preclude a citation of a non-trivial example of a nonfictional religious text, unless it is proven true within a consistent system; then no contradiction can exist.

Logical proof within a consistent system is what I'm asking for from you. I cite Gödel and Turing because, together, their work within consistent logical formalisms establishes that no such proof can be made within a consistent system with respect to all instances of true statements generated within the consistent system. There is no general refutation nor general proof of certain true statements generated within robust, consistent axiomatic systems. Certain of these statements are undecidable.

To summarize: a) your long, empirical list of scriptural statements doesn't preclude existence of scriptural truth, which example thereof you've asked for; b) proof within a robust, consistent axiomatic system of a finite number of true statements is possible; proof of all possible logical conclusions within a consistent axiomatic system is what's required, but Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and Turing's Halting Problem establish the necessary appearance of some logical statements undecidable.

You can choose to believe all scriptural narratives are fictions, you cannot formally prove all scriptural narratives are fictions. Gödel and Turing have shown, within formal systems there's an impassable gap between truth and provability due to the unavoidable generation of undecidable expressions.

I want us to examine some details of pi's irrationality in application to: — ucarr

I'm not aware of any religious texts (scriptures) which are not, at least, demonstrable fictions.. — 180 Proof

Let's suppose all of your scriptural investigations are correct: all of your encounters have been with religious texts that are demonstrable fictions. Regarding your anti-theism project, you still haven't crossed home plate.

There's a fundamental gap between "truth" and "provability" within formal systems (math, logic). Regarding verbal language, given its vagueness, ambiguity, and contextual variance, the gap is even wider.

A given scripture with God as a character might be demonstrable fiction in context, but can it be proven such in general terms? We know the claim it's fiction is true, but can we prove it formally? Perhaps we can in some instances. Can it be proven in all instances?

Can we conceptualize all scripture, written and still to be written, as an infinite series that can be summed to an integral without a remainder? Such a summation would be the proof of the infinite set of narratives being summed to an integral establishing cardinal falsehood. Of the two types of infinite series, the convergent type shows many instances with no "closed-form" solutions. The "exact answer" is the infinite series or the integral. A solution to a specific infinite series might be tailor made to fit, but the remainder will always be non-zero.

Let's put the proof of the fictional status of all scriptures into the context of the Turing Halting Problem.
Can we compute for all proofs of scriptural fiction a universal program that can determine whether the proof stops at a cardinal value, or keeps running, forever remaindering the summation to an integral? Turing shows us the answer is, "No." By writing a "pathological program" that inputs the contradiction of what the universal program validates, he created a paradoxical output that derails universality.

Gödel showed us that within all sufficient formal systems, you'll get a statement like this one, "This sentence is not provable." If it's provable, it's false (contradiction); if it's not provable, it's true (meaning it's a true, unprovable statement, i.e., undecidable). This is proof of permanent unprovability.

The character of God in a narrative, once rendered irrational, might be demonstrably false, but are there any formal systems that can always prove this falsehood? Are there any verbal languages that can always prove this falsehood?

By our agreed upon understanding of a system, if there is a "secondary purpose" it indicates a different system, not so? — Pieter R van Wyk

Not so because, given the example of an automobile as a system, we see that the main purpose is transportation. Transportation is the top priority, however, achievement of this goal requires a variety of sub-systems with sub-ordinate purposes that function in support roles. In order for the automobile to get to its destination, it needs a cooling system that keeps it from overheating as it drives through the desert. Keeping the engine within a temperature range that prevents overheating is not the main goal; if the automobile sat idling in the garage, the cooling system, working properly, would keep the engine within a safe temperature range. Doing this is necessary to the auto's main goal, but this action alone doesn't get us to our destination, it supports that goal.

Many systems have sub-systems with supporting functions. Main system and supporting system have a Venn diagram of shared functionality; the driving auto, which encompasses all of the parts, has a cool engine; it's the intersection of the whole system and its cooling system. The cooling system, being a sub-system, doesn't encompass the electrical system for example.

If so-called 'Nothing' has a capability to make something, then one didn't really have the claimed 'Nothing' in the first place, for capability is a something. — PoeticUniverse

I agree.

I don't know what "insuperable immersion in being" means. — Ciceronianus

It's saying that as long as you're Ciceronianus, you can't step outside of being Ciceronianus.

...I think the only meaningful question is "why does the universe exist?" — Ciceronianus

What're your thoughts on this question?

...a universe that has no opening — ucarr

Does not exist. So something's super-wrong in your thinking. — AmadeusD

Carl Sagan speculated about our universe being eternal. When does eternity begin? — ucarr

This has nothing to do with what I've said. — AmadeusD

I think an eternal universe has no opening. What do you think?

The Goddess implores the visitor to not try to say what is not sayable. She also observes that many do. — Paine

I'm of two minds on this one: a) If the not sayable exists, then of course one should not waste time in the folly of blathering on; b) As Robert Browning says, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven for?" Staying shut up violates human nature. It's natural that most theoreticians get laughed out of genteel company. Conservatism has its value. When, however, a Newton or an Einstein comes along, then the world, once apace with the new thinking, blathers on in raptures about the sublimities of genius. And thus a new conservative genteel who contemn the present day theoreticians carries on.

The emphasis I put on conditions is to note that making 'what is not being' an object of thought is to ignore that we can only compare alternatives between beings. Hypothesizing the existence of a 'non-being' would be a division of being. It is this division that Parmenides objects to. — Paine

I agree with this.

Not in the sense the word is used today. The Goddess does not permit utterance to be separated from thinking. The whole issue of whether universals have an existence beyond a grouping of particulars, as nominalists deny, requires division Parmenides says are strictly the business of mortality. — Paine

I think I agree with this.

Define ToE: The Totality of Existence. If naturalism is true then ToE={the universe}; if deism is true then ToE={universe+God}

In either case (ToE) was not preceded by a "state of nothingness", for the reason I just mentioned: it is logically impossible for a "state of nothingness" to precede that which exists.

So, feel free to assume a God exists - but don't fool yourself into believing you can prove it to be the case. — Relativist

This is a good argument and I've no quarrel with it.

I don't posit God existing in solitude prior to the universe. I agree there's no something from nothing.

My conjecture of interest to me says, "An infinite series with neither beginning nor ending has neither start point nor end point but, instead, there's a continuous now that progresses as an infinite series bi-directionally toward start point and end point without arrival at either pole. Whether one moves backwards or forwards in time, one is always in the now." The language makes it easy for us to say it as, "As I move in either direction, it's always now that I'm moving."

Why is this an open universe? My gut tells me a bilateral infinite series towards both poles doesn't accommodate discrete boundaries. What sort of boundaries contains the now? Time is the universal solvent that keeps us in the now. What ever stops time?

Tomorrow, I will focus on irrationality in the sense of an irrational number like pi, which is non-ending, non-repeating and can't be expressed as a ratio. I want us to examine some details of pi's irrationality in application to:

I'm not aware of any religious texts (scriptures) which are not, at least, demonstrable fictions.. — 180 Proof

Hence if you have a question like "How can you square the circle?" you already have the idea that there's the algorithm to do this just to be found. And then you can just hope for a pertinent solution to appear from some great math genius in the future, because you aren't at all willing to give away your false premiss. And likely you aren't open in your mind to conclusions saying that it cannot be done. — ssu

Your example, like calculus, doesn't finalize the comprehension of the infinite series. The approximation forever stands "as if." To the extent your imagining a perfect circle is tied to the calculation of a circle using delta-epsilon approaches to limits with finite numbers - how else can you conceptualize a perfect circle beyond imagining the incalculable transcendence of an infinite-sided polygon - you're only imagining the "as if" rendition of a perfect circle. This leads to the strange conclusion no one have ever seen a circle. What we see is a polygon which, in abstraction, we count as a circle. In short, no one has seen nor calculated infinity. (Even the theists acknowledge Moses didn't actually see God.)

Asking why something happens cannot operate in the infinitely determined or infinitely undetermined. — Paine

This sentence is a performative contradiction. You use explanation to make a declaration about the prohibition of explanation.

Whether it's an infinite regress of causes, postulated first causes, or a realm of pure chance, the way to the answer to why-being is endless.

Thinking and the object of thought are the same. For you will not find thought apart from being, nor either of them apart from utterance. Indeed, there is not any at all apart from being, because Fate has bound it together so as to be whole and unmovable. Accordingly, all the usual notions that mortals accept and rely on as if true---coming-to-be and perishing, being and not-being, change of place and variegated shades of color---these are nothing more than names. — Parmenides, 8: 34-41, Wheelwright Edition

Assuming thought only accessible through language of some type, I ask, "Was Parmenides a nominalist?"

Why not nothing? = Why being? Asking either question assumes being, so [why-] being is inscrutable by questioning. — ucarr

To ask the question of why anything exists requires a questioner, yes. But so what? — Mijin

That because we ask the question, "Why not nothing?" there is not nothing means the question creates a tautology we can't escape. The insuperability of our being-ness tautology suggests why-being is the limit of our inquiry methodology. In the context of Philosophy, specifically ontology, this is not a trivial matter. Nominalism denies general being, but that denial merely shifts the tautology to individual beings.

We also need a questioner to ask what dark matter is made of...does that observation solve the question of what dark matter is? Does it entail that a universe without dark matter is impossible?

Likewise the fact that sentience is a prerequisite for asking why anything exists, does not in any way answer the question. And it doesn't tell us that nothingness is impossible. — Mijin

Do your examples highlight the special status of the why-being question? A questioner can separate himself from physics; he can't separate himself from himself are per existence in pursuit of its why-being.

And it doesn't tell us that nothingness is impossible. — Mijin

The tautology of the why-being inquiry, held at bay in non-self-referential inquiries, allows a fighting chance the questioner might arrive at the why-answers to physics. Step outside of physics and you step into the supernaturalism of theism. In the context of supernaturalism, perhaps things are created from nothing. At our level of physics while in the flesh, the inaccessibility of nothingness is a problem of perspective emergent from our state of being necessarily within existence.

Does supernaturalism allow the super-positioning of not being and being? As a natural person, it's hard for me to picture the transition point between nothing and something in the creation of something from nothing. How could such a transition point occur given the fact that such a transition is centered in somethingness? Is there a logical escape from the somethingness that is the phenomenon of creating somethingness from nothingness? If the agent creating something from nothing exists necessarily, how can the presence of this somethingness have contact with nothingness? Any presence of somethingness obliterates nothingness.

That's a positive spin on it, but the logic in mathematics is a staunch judge that doesn't give leeway falsehoods. Questions with false premises won't likely by accident give you something useful. — ssu

What you say is true within the constraining context of statistics. Statistical random sampling methods and their margins of error accommodate chance deviations from facts guiding design of methodologies toward goals. I will guess that many scientists are prone to tamping down their margin of error calculations for the sake of making experimental results look more acceptable.

Random sampling margins of error in application to premises can sometimes be the engine driving science forward:

Hence if you have a question like "How can you square the circle?" you already have the idea that there's the algorithm to do this. And then you can just hope for a pertinent solution to appear from some great math genius in the future, because you aren't at all willing to give away your false premiss. And likely you aren't open in your mind to conclusions saying that it cannot be done. — ssu

This is an apt portrait of the theoretician. Can we suppose someone said to Newton, "Can you square the circle?" Newton (and Leibniz) respond with their calculus calculating the integral sum of the area under a curve with an infinite series of infinitesimal rectangles.

As you say, questions with currently false premises can be stored in the collective memory as functions with future applications.

System := Components (things that are) and the interaction between these components (things that happen), contributing to a single unique purpose. How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence — Pieter R van Wyk

My only contribution is that there exists a unique purpose for the Universal System. This purpose consists of an interaction with a specific component that is the only component that is not a component of the Universal System - it is a very unique thing in the Universal Collection of Components. We cannot object if this unique interaction or this unique component is named God or any other name... — Pieter R van Wyk

So, this Venn diagram that you are speaking of, does it contain such a group of parts? Then, is the purpose also in this Venn diagram or not? — Pieter R van Wyk

Given system as you define it above, consider that it's the totality of parts acting in harmony towards a purpose. Now, suppose that only some of the parts act in harmony towards a secondary purpose that supports the main purpose. Under this construction, the totality of parts forms the superset, and the less-than-total number of parts forms a subset of the superset.

As you know, the superset and the subset share parts, but the superset has additional parts not contained in the subset. The Venn diagram, as you also know, presents a visual representation of the interaction of the two sets. This interaction has the subset circle lying entirely within the larger superset circle. At a glance, this visual tells us that the two sets share common parts.

As you know, the subset shares some of the parts and therefore some of the purpose of the superset. As you know, common language says that the purpose of the subset is a sub-routine that performs a specific task essential to the main purpose of the system as a whole (superset).

My purpose in our dialogue is to examine whether or not your statement above in bold italics expresses a contradiction. The appearance of a contradiction arises from you saying the unique component interacts with the the universal system and also saying the unique component is the only component that is not a component of the Universal System.

If one set interacts with another set, as in the superset_subset relationship, then it's a contradiction to also say that same set is not a component of the other set. The premise supporting my suspicion of a contradiction is the Venn diagram. The Venn diagram illustrates the common set that is the intersection of the subset and its superset. In keeping with this configuration, your description: there exists a unique purpose for the Universal System. This purpose consists of an interaction with a specific component that is the only component that is not a component of the Universal System. describes a unique component that is part of a common set while at the same time not a part of a common set.

X#÷^@WVH isn't "completely understood" either. — 180 Proof

If X#÷^@WVH isn't gibberish, then please tell me what it says. I see the conjunction operator, but the terms on either side of it are unknown to me.

I agree with those who've noted "nothing" isn't an option. So the actual question would seem to be--Why does the universe exist? — Ciceronianus

Are we compelled to say, "Nothing isn't an option." because our perspective is constrained by our insuperable immersion within being? The problem of perspective lies at the heart of my OP.

This seems to me to be a question which science may answer someday, if the question addresses how the universe came to be. — Ciceronianus

The problem of perspective includes the problem with asking, "How did the universe come to be?" This question sets up a linear timeline with a beginning of the universe. Because of the comprehension restriction problem, I have doubts about our understanding of the boundary of the universe. Some folks will hasten to say the universe has no center and no boundary.

Topology shows some promise of taking us beyond simple beginnings and endings.

Heraclitus said that eternity stretches backward and forward. That pretty much frees up any need to explain why anything exists. — Paine

Terse and very much to the point. Thanks for posting this.

Causality needs the prospect of stuff not happening to get started. — Paine

I'm inclined to think stuff is its own source of causality because causality involves symmetry and conservation. The symmetry of stuff mirrors out there, and then interaction with other symmetries causes emergence and the resulting ecology looks like a universe of variety. It's really just a lot of conserved transformations though.

Nietzsche pointed out that if eternal recurrence is the case, everything that can happen already has done that. — Paine

I hope there's no eternal recurrence; a closed-loop reality is unappealing.

What you say about the modus ponens chain of reasoning is correct.

As for the timeline of our universe, what do you make of a timeline bidirectionally irrational? There’s no Zeno progression from a beginning-to-now paradox because there’s no beginning. Also, there’s no collapse to nothing that invokes the paradox of something collapsing to nothing while something collapsing to nothing is a something because there’s no collapse to nothing.

I admit that I’m indulging in far-fetching speculation by conjecturing about a bi-directional infinite series timeline that’s an eternal now based on the algebraic geometry of topology.

What do you think?

Isomorphically, the world shares the same logical form as our thoughts and language. That explains why the world makes sense to us. — Richard B

This is helpful info. It bolsters my inclination to believe our sensory input is not entirely self-enclosed.

a universe that has no opening — ucarr

Does not exist. So something's super-wrong in your thinking. — AmadeusD

Carl Sagan speculated about our universe being eternal. When does eternity begin?

This supposed 'Nothing' cannot be. This mistaken 'it' has no it and so it cannot even be meant; therefore existence must be, for it has no alternative, and indeed there is something; so no option. — PoeticUniverse

All of this arises from your insuperable immersion in existence. Your argument boils down to saying, "Existence must be because it is." The problem, a problem of perspective, consists in the fact we observe existence from a position the makes not-existence unreachable.

When you propound your anti-theism, are you wont to say theistic texts are gibberish? — ucarr

I'm not aware of any religious texts (scriptures) which are not, at least, demonstrable fictions.. — 180 Proof

Okay. Demonstrable fictions stand some distance away from gibberish. Demonstrable fictions have premises that can be true or false.

I've heard your claim theism is empty. Voiding the claims of theism seeks to expose its logical errors, doesn't it?

Incoherences and falsities. — 180 Proof

Okay. As I take incoherences to be instances of invalidity, I see this list as your acknowledgement theistic narratives contain logical errors in the form of invalidity, as well as other types of logical errors.

Establishing the falsehood of a narrative requires a discernible meaning with a supporting argument with underlying premises. — ucarr

It only requires showing that theistic truth-claims lack sufficient truth-makers. — 180 Proof

Okay. Your work includes exposing truth-claims unsupported by facts. Usually, a truth claim holds a premise embedded within.

Are you now saying theism, instead of being invalid, presents as unintelligible nonsense?

No. Why do you ask? — 180 Proof

Let me quote you:

X#÷^@WVH isn't "completely understood" either. — 180 Proof

Thus, the world is the totality of facts, not of things. So what are these things/objects? They are metaphysical presuppositions assumed in order to show how we come to understand the world around us. — Richard B

Do you believe facts, which are narratives, lie trapped within language? Given such a situation, how can you think we can know and understand the world around us?

Is this chain of reasoning valid? — ucarr

Back at the beginning, you presumed that there was someone asking a question. So it's no surprise that you can conclude that someone exists. — Banno

Yes, I presumed someone was asking the question, "Why is there not nothing?" This question, asked a long time ago, is the impetus for my OP. I'm not alone in doing that around here. It's one of the important reasons we come around here, isn't it?

Asking a question presumes the questioner. Sure. — Banno

Presuming the advanced sentience required by inquiry is no trivial matter. Do you demur?

That's not demonstrating that something exists, so much as presuming it. — Banno

What you say is true, however, the focus of my argument rests upon the implication that questioning something precludes the nothing that wants to be investigated. The upshot of this, also not trivial, says that existence is insuperable to the questioner. This is what I think gives the question of general existence special status. The questioner cannot examine general existence without presuming his own existence unexamined as he cannot get outside of himself and within himself his self-examination is ultimately tautological.

Which one must do, anyway. That there is stuff is still no more than a brute fact. — Banno

The brute fact of existence lies at the heart of my argument: existence, being insuperable, presents as the limit of inquiry. Why do you consider this premise nothing more than mundane observation?

There are moments when I find "something" disappointing, I'll admit. This is one of them. — Ciceronianus

You can help me by elaborating some of the details of your mathematical and logical disappointments experienced while reading my OP. As you may have seen with Tom Storm, he supplies helpful details that clarify his dislikes. These details help me see more clearly where I can work towards improvement.

God will not be completely understood. — ucarr

X#÷^@WVH isn't "completely understood" either. — 180 Proof

When you propound your anti-theism, are you wont to say theistic texts are gibberish? I've heard your claim theism is empty. Voiding the claims of theism seeks to expose its logical errors, doesn't it? Establishing the falsehood of a narrative requires a discernible meaning with a supporting argument with underlying premises. Are you now saying theism, instead of being invalid, presents as unintelligible nonsense?