Where are you headed?

I meant that abstract facts, and other abstract objects are timeless.

They aren't in spacetime at all. universes can come and go, and they're unaffected. — Michael Ossipoff

I see no need for abstract objects, so I invoke Occam's razor. Away with them.

Nor do I see a need for abstract facts. Consider the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. Is that still a fact if there are no objects that can be grouped into twos and fours? I see no need for it to be.

I am sceptical of the entire idea of timelessness. Every existent thing of which we have knowledge exists temporally. I suspect the notion of timelessness to be incoherent. If I try to imagine something timeless, I actually imagine something persisting unchanging, but persisting requires time in which the persistence can occur.

A local isolated inter-referring system of abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals doesn't need any context other than its own, in which to be factual. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't think facts about hypotheticals are genuine facts. Consider the putative fact that if there were dragons, they would breathe flame. Is that a genuine fact? I don't think so. I think it is just something we imagine.

I heard that Wittgenstein said that there are no things, just facts. I like that. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't see how there could be facts if there were no things for the facts to be about.

For me everything looks like this, and while I say everything, nothing is not an exception.

It isn't a "thing"; quite simple.

For me, everything looks like this, and while I say everything, nothing is not an exception — Vajk

NOTHING is, by definition, NOT anything.

I’d said:
.

I meant that abstract facts, and other abstract objects are timeless.

They aren't in spacetime at all. universes can come and go, and they're unaffected.

— Michael Ossipoff
.
You said:
.

I see no need for abstract objects, so I invoke Occam's razor. Away with them.

.
??? That’s quite a statement.
.
The number two is something. It isn’t a material object. It isn’t in spacetime. It’s an abstract object.
.
That’s an example of what “abstract object” refers to.
.
It isn’t denied by anyone that there are such things.
.
You can quibble all you want about what’s “real” or what “exists”. There’s no need to. Those two words don’t have widely-accepted metaphysical definitions, and anyone can use them as they wish. I won’t get into such a quibble.
.
Feel free to feel that abstract objects don’t exist or aren’t real. I won’t tell you what to consider real or existent.
.

Nor do I see a need for abstract facts.

.
They’re a kind of abstract object, but a special kind that can be true or false.
.

Consider the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. Is that still a fact if there are no objects that can be grouped into twos and fours?

.
Yes.
.

I see no need for it to be.

.
If there were no objects, there’d be no people, and there’d be no need for anyone to use equations, theorems or numbers.
.
So it isn’t really about need
.
2+2=4, with reasonable definitions of 2 and 4, is easily provable, by the additive associative axiom of the real numbers, rational numbers and integers
.
A mathematical theorem, or any proved mathematical fact, is an if-then fact whose “if “ premise includes, but isn’t limited to, a set of mathematical axioms (algebraic or geometric).
.
Given reasonable definitions of 2 and 4: If the additive associative axiom is true, then 2+2=4.

.

I am sceptical of the entire idea of timelessness.

.
At what time does 2+2=4?
.
How long has 2+2=4 been true?
.
Where is 2+2=4? (…if you don’t believe in positionless-ness either)
.

Every existent thing of which we have knowledge exists temporally.

.
Feel free to define “existent” as “material” or “physical”. Suit yourself.
.
I’d said:
.

A local isolated inter-referring system of abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals doesn't need any context other than its own, in which to be factual. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

I don't think facts about hypotheticals are genuine facts.

.
If all slithytoves are brillig, and if all jaberwockys are slithytoves, then all jaberwockeys are brillig.
.
That if-then fact about hypotheticals is timelessly true even if none of the slithytoves are brillig.
.
That if-then fact about hypotheticals is timelessly true even if none of the jaberwockeys are slithytoves.
.
That if-then fact about hypotheticals is timelessly true even if there are no jaberwockeys or slithytoves.
.

Consider the putative fact that if there were dragons, they would breathe flame. Is that a genuine fact?

.
No, not if there were non-flame-breathing dragons. What if a dragon had a cold?
.
However if there were fire-breathing dragons, they’d breathe fire. That’s a genuine fact.
.

I don't think so. I think it is just something we imagine.

.
You feel that facts can only be about existent physical objects. You’re certainly welcome to define words, such as “fact”, as you wish.
.
I’d said:
.

I heard that Wittgenstein said that there are no things, just facts. I like that.

— Michael Ossipoff
.
You replied:
.

I don't see how there could be facts if there were no things for the facts to be about.

.
…with your definition of facts.
.
See above, regarding slithytoves and jaberwockeys.
.
A physical law is a hypothetical relation among a set of hypothetical physical quantity-values.
.
That physical law, and all but one of those values, can be taken, together, as the “if “ premise as an if-then fact.
.
The remaining one of those values can be taken as the “then” conclusion of that if-then fact.
.
As I said, a mathematical theorem is an if-then fact whose “if “ premise includes but isn’t limited to, a set of mathematical axioms (algebraic or geometric).
.
There can of course be complex systems of inter-referring if-then facts about hypotheticals.
.
…infinitely-many such logical-systems.
.
Inevitably, one of those infinitely-many complex logical systems has the same events and relations as those of our “physical” world. There’s no reason to believe that our “physical” world is other than that.
.
If there are “concrete”, objectively-existent “things”—if our universe is other than a complex logical system, then that’s a superfluous unfalsifiable brute-fact.
.
The physicist Michael Faraday pointed that out in 1844. Physicists Frank Tippler and Max Tegmark have said it more recently.
.
As already noted, Wittgenstein said that there are no things, only facts.
.
Before convincing yourself that you’re right and they’re all wrong, take a more critical look at the subject.
.
Ockam’s Principle of Parsimony says to avoid unnecessary assumptions, or to at least minimize assumptions.
.
The metaphysics described above doesn’t need or make any assumptions, or have any brute-facts. Materialism has a big, blatant brute-fact: Its unexplained fundamentally-existent, objectively-existent physical universe.
.
I get that you don’t value, recognize or take seriously philosophy, or metaphysics in particular. Fine. Lots of people don’t. They don’t post here.
.
You realize that this is a philosophy forum, right?
.
Michael Ossipoff

NOTHING is, by definition, NOT anything. — TheMadFool

It depend, who made that definition I guess.

It depend, who made that definition I guess — Vajk

What is your definition of NOTHING?

Nothing is nothing.

If someone would say that ‘‘There is not even nothing‘‘ then perhaps I‘ve could say, that there is not even even.

Or what about this?
If not anything, then nothing is bigger then human ego.

Lawrence Kuhn defined a whole hierarchy of Nothings. But I guess full Nothing would be if there weren't even abstract facts or other abstract objects.

We've had some discussion here about why there couldn't have been that full Nothing.

A more modest Nothing, and one that we have (unless there's superfluously and unfalsifiably more, as a brute-fact) is no "concrete", objectively-existent,fundamentally-existent, Materialist physical universe and Materialist "Stuff". ...but still abstract facts (such as the complex inter-referring system of them that is our universe).

But I don't call that latter one "Nothing". ...because one of them is the context of our lives.

By "Nothing", I'd refer to the full Nothing that I mentioned first.

Google "Lawrence Kuhn, Hierarchy of Nothings", or something like that.

Michael Ossipoff

The number two is something. It isn’t a material object. It isn’t in spacetime. It’s an abstract object.
.
That’s an example of what “abstract object” refers to.
.
It isn’t denied by anyone that there are such things.
. — Michael Ossipoff

It is denied by nominalists. I'm surprised that you don't know that. See, for example, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/

In general, I take a nominalist view of facts. The fact that 2 +2 = 4 can be reduced to the fact that all occurrences of two concrete particulars and another two concrete particulars constitute an occurrence of four concrete particulars. Nothing else, and in particular no abstract objects, are required to describe what obtains.

If all slithytoves are brillig, and if all jaberwockys are slithytoves, then all jaberwockeys are brillig.
.
That if-then fact about hypotheticals is timelessly true even if none of the slithytoves are brillig.
.
That if-then fact about hypotheticals is timelessly true even if none of the jaberwockeys are slithytoves.
.
That if-then fact about hypotheticals is timelessly true even if there are no jaberwockeys or slithytoves. — Michael Ossipoff

Your supposed 'if-then fact about hypotheticals' is actually about slithytoves and jaberwockys, not about hypotheticals, because the supposed if-then fact actually is the hypothetical. And my nominalist view is that there can be no facts about slithytoves and jaberwockys because these are non-existents, and you cannot have facts about non-existents. Your first statement here (If all slithytoves are brillig, and if all jaberwockys are slithytoves, then all jaberwockeys are brillig) is true, but only in a formal logical sense of 'true'; it has the kind of truth that is determined by logic, not by fact.

I get that you don’t value, recognize or take seriously philosophy, or metaphysics in particular. — Michael Ossipoff

Absurd. I'm a nominalist, and nominalism is a metaphysical theory.

Nothing is nothing.

If someone would say that ‘‘There is not even nothing‘‘ then perhaps I‘ve could say, that there is not even even.

Or what about this?
If not anything, then nothing is bigger then human ego. — Vajk

I fail to understand you.

Nothing is better than sex. $1 is better than nothing. So, $1 is better than sex.

Your point seems to revolve around the above fallacious argument. Am I right?

What have you seen on that picture I linked before?

What have you seen on that picture I linked before? — Vajk

An eye.

The faculty of vision, the ultimate sense organ; used as an analogy for understanding, comprehension.

The importance of perspective. At close range, it's just a bunch of blots of paint. At a particular distance, we see an eye. Go farther out and it becomes a point.

A painter's inner thoughts. May be s/he thinks eyes are a window to the self. It reveals a person just as it reveals the external world.

A complex organization...irreducible complexity...god?

Sorry, my imagination fails me. What do you have in mind?

Have you seen the dots?

it has the kind of truth that is determined by logic, not by fact. — Herg

It isn't a substantive disagreement. Definitional only.

Nominalists just use "Exist", "Fact" and "is" with different meaning.

Michael Ossipoff

Pointilism allows colors and brilliance that aren't possible with the subtractive combinations of ordinary painting.

Michael Ossipoff

I see everything builded up from theese small dots.

Things are. Nothing is not. "what is nothing" is a meaningless question like what is the colour of F-sharp, Or what does blue sound like.
Things have properties. Nothing has no properties, as having is a property of existing. Things exist; nothing does not exist and has no properties. Not having a property is not a property.

Things are. Nothing is not. — charleton

Relatively not or simply not?

True, there isn't anything that nothing is. There's no answer to what nothing is, because it isn't anything.

As you said, there can't be an answer to "What is Nothing?"

But, where the subject of Nothing comes up is when it's asked why there's anything. Sometimes it's asked if there could have not been anything.

And you have to admit that, if you believe that, metaphysically, at the metaphysical level, there's something "concrete", solid, objectively-existent, then you've got something to explain. Why is there something instead of Nothing?

A Materialist (aka metaphysical Physicalist, "Naturalist", or Nominalist) will say that there just is the physical world, and that it's just a brute-fact. We observe it, measure it, and it's there, and there's no explanation. Some people don't find that satisfactory.

But there's no such problem, nothing to explain, if, metaphysically, there isn't anything "concrete" and objectively-existent. ...if there's nothing but abstract facts.

(We've talked about why there couldn't have not been abstract facts.)

And if, as I've described, our physical universe can be explained from that basis, then, if the Materialist/Naturalist/Nominalist believes in something more, then he believes in something superfluous, unfalsfiable, and unverifiable.

Then there's nothing to explain, no brute-fact. And when there needn't be a brute-fact, then the Materialist's/Naturalist's/Nominalist's brute-fact is no longer convincing, or even acceptable.

What I'm saying there metaphysically only is--a Nominalist would call it "Nothing" So, if Nominalist definitions are your definitions, then, metaphysically, there's Nothing.

Michael Ossipoff

I see everything builded up from theese small dots. — Vajk

Yes, from a distance, a seemingly solid picture,which, upon closer inspection, turns out to consist of something different from what you saw at a distance and thought that it was. ...pervaded by blank paper with nothing marked on it.

So why couldn't our physical universe, with its seemingly solid things, be similarly composed of something quite different from what we've been taught to assume? Something not so "solid" and "concrete"? Because science says so? No, it doesn't.

Michael Ossipoff

I mean literally,

I see everything builded up from theese small dots. — Vajk

absolutely

What do you mean by that?

"A Materialist (aka metaphysical Physicalist, "Naturalist", or Nominalist) will say that there just is the physical world, and that it's just a brute-fact. We observe it, measure it, and it's there, and there's no explanation. Some people don't find that satisfactory.

But there's no such problem, nothing to explain, if, metaphysically, there isn't anything "concrete" and objectively-existent. ...if there's nothing but abstract facts.
And you have to admit that, if you believe that, metaphysically, at the metaphysical level, there's something "concrete", solid, objectively-existent, then you've got something to explain. Why is there something instead of Nothing?"

If the case were that there was nothing rather than something, then it would not even be possible to ask such a question - there being nothing is ask, and nothing to answer. Symmetrically, then, there is no burden to have to answer why there is something rather than nothing. The condition of nothing rather than something is not even a condition or state of affairs. Nothing is also no state of affairs at all.

Things being concrete or objective is just a detail. If the world were purely conceptual and subjective, there still would have to BE a conceiver and subject to conceive. Object/subject divisions are not questions about existence, but about perceptions of existence - as existence is a substrate of the ground of possibility of asking.

You asked "relative" or "simply`'
What do you mean?

Things are. Nothing is not. — charleton

Relatively not or simply not? — Vajk

-How not? relativly not, simply not, or "absolutely" not?

Simply, relatively, and absolutely.
What's the problem?

Nothing.