It seems nonsensical to me because I'm unable to make sense of it. What does it mean to say that no-thing is longer than no-thing (or that no philosopher is smarter than no philosopher)? — Luke

These are contradictions and should prompt you to trace it back to some premise(s) in your argument. I did that with my argument and it went back to the concept of nothing. If nothing were possible then it leads to contradictions which in themselves are impossibilities. Ergo, nothing is impossible.

But there is no contradiction, and it makes perfect sense, in saying that "nothing is longer than A" (adopting the assumptions of the OP).

It seems nonsensical to me because I'm unable to make sense of — Luke

But there is no contradiction, and it makes perfect sense, — Luke

:chin:

Never mind.

But we're talking about existence. A "set" of things is normally distinguished, and distinguishable, from a set of other things, or another thing. There is no set of things which lack existence, i.e. which don't have existence as a common quality. We don't, and can't, distinguish things which exist from "things" that don't exist.

No thing is longer than no thing, because it is perpetual infinity. I call that space.
No philosopher is smarter than no philosopher, because it is perpetual wisdom. I call that love.

Both physical and real quantities of absolute nonsense.

If nothing were possible then it leads to contradictions which in themselves are impossibilities. Ergo, nothing is impossible. — TheMadFool

Nothingness is eminently logical. It's impossible for nothing not to exist

charles ferraro
110
↪TheMadFool

I assure you, in the most personal way, ultimately, there will be nothing rather than something for each one of us. — charles ferraro

I doubt you can do that. I doubt anyone can.

The big problem with this discussion..and with almost all the discussions in this forum...is that the participants suppose that humans can know or imagine everything that exists in the ultimate REALITY of what exists.

We are the dominant carbon based life-form on this rock circling a fairly routine star in a galaxy of 200 - 300 billion stars...in a part of a universe that contains hundreds of billions of other galaxies. We almost certainly are no big deal.

If most of our arguments were made with the conditional "it may be that...X"...some of the discussions could be deemed reasonable. (I personally consider most to be interesting, even entertaining, despite the unreasonable element created by our human chauvinism.)

We do not have answers here...we have speculations...often accompanied by speculations about the solidity of arguments for and against proposed speculations.

I'm not doing anything, nature does it. I think it's pretty well empirically settled that we will all die at some point, isn't it?

charles ferraro
111
↪Frank Apisa

I'm not doing anything, nature does it. I think it's pretty well empirically settled that we will all die at some point, isn't it? — charles ferraro

Absolutely. That is especially obvious to me. I'm 83...and I can have a high school class reunion in my living room...while keeping reasonable social distancing.

But you said, "I assure you, in the most personal way, ultimately, there will be nothing rather than something for each one of us."

The question of whether or not that means "nothing rather than something" remains a mystery.

Right?

Hey! My Neapolitan Cousin. I'm 80, and, rest assured, I am just as mystified as you are as to what the ultimate outcome will be; viz., "Nothing, or something." But, you and I both know that we will find out soon, won't we?

As I have written elsewhere, to me, it's as simple as this:

If something exists after we die, and we exist after we die, well then, we will know it: but, if nothing exists after we die, and we do not exist after we die, well then, we will not know it.

And that's IT baby!!!!!

My people are Nabalitan (as we say)...from a small village near Caserta. They are getting creamed over there right now. Lots and lots of Italians are finding out that answer of which we speak.

I hope we do not exist after we die. I've had a great life...and still have. But when it ends, I'd just as soon have it end completely. (And that is what I expect!)

Frank:

My paternal grandfather came from a little hamlet called Sant Angelo a Cupolo and my paternal grandmother came from a neighboring hamlet called San Nicola Manfredi, both located in Benevento in the province of Campania. Like you, I hurt for those beautiful people who love life, art, and family so much.

Even though I fully understand and can completely identify with where you're coming from, still, I hope you and I will, in the end, be pleasantly surprised.

Stay healthy buddy!

But we're talking about existence. A "set" of things is normally distinguished, and distinguishable, from a set of other things, or another thing. There is no set of things which lack existence, i.e. which don't have existence as a common quality. We don't, and can't, distinguish things which exist from "things" that don't exist. — Ciceronianus the White

I'm relying on your ability to discern a difference between statements like "ants bite" and "ants swarm" for you to see my point. "Ants bite" means that each and every ant bites but "ants swarm" refers, not to individual ants themselves but, to the swarming behavior of a colony of ants.

Anyway, coming to the point of, and I quote, "we don't, and can't, distinguish things which exist from "things" that don't exist", I'd like to call upon the all time favorite example of an impossible object, the square circle. The square circle neither exists in reality nor in the imagination and so, doesn't, can't, exist. As you already know, there are many more impossible objects that we can attempt to construct or imagine but on both scores we will be met with failure; these impossible objects don't, can't, exist. Interestingly, like my argument in the OP, this is a proof by contradiction.

Nothingness is eminently logical. It's impossible for nothing not to exist — Gregory

:up:

Which means, I suppose, that there are "things" having the property of "impossibility" or "impossibleness." Why isn't "Why are some things possible and some things impossible?" the fundamental question of metaphysics? I assume because impossible things are merely a subset of nonexistent things.

I think we've gone as far as we can with this, but wish you, and others, good luck in answering such questions. Cleary, I'm no metaphysician.