But Orchid doesn't mind. To Orchid, death just means a course of nature.

The "If" part needs backing proofs with evidence before the whole sentence could be accepted as a meaningful statement.
— Corvus
We were deliberately ignoring all that, since the possibility of this as described isn't there at all. — noAxioms

Sure. The point is not a criticism or condemnation by any means. It is just to clarify the statement is unsupported in any meaningful manner without proofs and evidences, hence all the following arguments would be just speculative conjectures.

Because of the fact the premise "IF" describes the possible physical and empirical events, and also the conclusion part is soley dependent on the premise, it should have given even brief explanations how the IF part could be possible, for it to be accepted as a valid assumption for the further arguments.

“It is disgraceful for a philosopher to say: the good and the beautiful are one; if he adds 'also the true', one ought to beat him. Truth is ugly. We possess art lest we perish of the truth.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power

If they were to time travel (at some time after this present time), then they would alter the past and present as we know it. — Luke

The "If" part needs backing proofs with evidence before the whole sentence could be accepted as a meaningful statement.

The core issue of this conversation is articulation of the structure of connection linking mind with matter in the mode of Deacon’s theme: that mind emerged from matter. This clause declares the interweave connecting matter and mind. — ucarr

If you really asked me about this issue from my own perspectives, then mind is not something emerged from matter. You could say that, but then you will find much problem explicating further for the connection.

From my view, mind is a property of a living body. You seem to think that mind is a necessarily emerged existence from body. No that is not the case. A dead body has no mind. A chair has no mind. Waveform has no mind. A living human has mind.

Hence mind is a mental substance which is a property of a living intelligent agent with biological body. Then you might ask "Can A.I. Robot has mind?" No, they are designed to carry out certain tasks for human needs. They don't have mind as per se, but they can be intelligent because they are able to carry out the jobs humans do. Mind is a property of a living body with a totality of mental functions and events.

Can substance be a property? According to Bolzano in his Theory of Science, of course it can. A substance can be an object. An object can be a property of another object.

n your stance, you declare a hard boundary between material substance and mental substance. Your job now is to articulate with maximum precision of detail the structure wherein brain, albeit being a precondition of mind, nonetheless inhabits a structure featuring a hard partitioning of brain from mind. Per your stance as a hard-boundary dualist, you must explain a structure wherein the hard-partitioning (like parallellism) of brain/mind at the same time features brain as a precondition for mind. — ucarr

This is a thread for you to understand, explicate and defend "absential materialism". It is not for "to articulate with maximum precision of detail the structure wherein brain, albeit being a precondition of mind,"

I have mentioned "dualism" only because of your misunderstandings, in order to clarify that my position is not an idealism or immaterialism.

However, if it is the Cartesian dualism you are interested in, it is rather easy to defend. Since mind is different substance from matter, you can say, you simply have no mental capacity to perceive the mind itself.

By nature, mind is invisible entity with no extension, shape and weight, hence you cannot explain the connection between mind and body either in scientific terms. For you to conceive mind, you must be in possession of the super consciousness to be able to do so, but I suspect that you are.

If you are deeply interested in the Cartesian dualism, I would advise you to open a new thread for it.

Deacon makes it clear beyond doubt he endorses bottom-up causation from the material to the absentially material i.e., towards mind and its intentions. — ucarr

In that case, it sounds like the terminology "absential materialism" is incoherent.

the external world , whose origin growth and structure we have been, throughout this book, investigating, is the Mirror of the Mind and the Map of Knowledge in one...In an immediate and direct way, the mind can never know itself it can only know itself through the mediation of an external world, know that what it sees in the external world is its own reflection. (Collingwood, Speculum Mentis) — Pantagruel

Exactly. — Pantagruel

:cool: :up:

Mind can do a lot more than knowing the world. It hopes, imagines, feels, desires, plans, anticipates, criticises, reflects, remembers and reasons .... etc etc. It is a synthesis of the whole mental events and operations in totality.

3. The external world is, by definition, “external,” which is outside our minds.

Therefore:

4. Because everything we know exists in our minds, we can not have any knowledge about the external world.

I’m no logician, so it wouldn’t surprise me if I’ve somehow bungled the argument and I welcome anyone’s help in formulating it correctly. However, if this argument essentially satisfies the skeptic’s point, then it seems that the skeptic is contradicting him/herself by making a claim about the external world. — Thales

The definition "external", which is outside of our minds itself is inside our minds because it is a definition formed of a sentence, and the words "external" and "outside" are both concept, which are all internal to us. Hence, claiming that they are outside of us is incorrect.

We know the external world as representations to our mind. We know both the representations and external world to us, because they are conceivable and accessible via perception and interactions.

…I have never denied the existence of brain for the precondition of mind.
— Corvus

As a favor to me, can you respond to this post by talking about the operations of mind as they relate to brain as a precondition of mind? Immediately below I’ve quoted Wayfarer in order to explain why I’m asking this favor of you. — ucarr

It seems undeniable that the gap between actions and intentionality is meaning. Meaning is purely conceptual and logical.  If I see rain coming down, then I will close the window.

The perception of rain coming down, generated meaning that it might come into the room, and make things get wet and ruined, if the window was left open.  It is also a logic in inductive reasoning .  Hence there are causal chain effects in the process.

Seeing the rain coming down -> Noticing the window was open -> Reasoning that the rain will get into the room if the window was left open, and make the books get wet and ruined (inductive reasoning) ->  Closed the window (physical action).
Therefore the meaning combined with the reasoning caused the physical action.

However, Deacon's theory seems to be interpreting the actions via some sort of interactions between the physical objects via the physical causes and even physical meanings :roll: . 

The waveform as physical phenomenon is a fog of mass-energy in the mode of a mathematically determined cloud of probability describing the range of possible positions of an elementary particle. An apt physicalization of a fog of mass-energy is a gravitational field. When two gravitational fields interact, they generate meaning physically. Meaning, a narrative about a narrative, in its physical manifestation, is absential materialism. Meaning is about-ness signified in a language.

The physical generation of meaning via interacting gravitational fields suggests a bounded infinity of fate within a specified universe as bounded by interacting gravitational fields. If collapse to black hole density is possible in such a universe, then what will happen phenomenally_historically is pre-determined by said black hole density. Infinite gravity seems to mean that what can happen must happen. — ucarr

This is a contradictory view, and I feel that this is an incorrect explanation of his Absential materialism. Your claim seems to have gone this way.

1. Material things cannot think.
2. But they interact with other material things. (the waveforms, gravities, the writings with no meanings themselves ... etc)
3. Therefore material things create physical meanings. ==> FALSE, A poor logic and contradiction. :roll:

How can non-thinking things create meanings? What on earth is physical meaning?

All meaning is mental and conceptual in nature.  The material existence doesn't know anything about meaning.  They just behave as according to the laws of physics. Material objects don't care about the cause and effect either. They just exist, interact and change according to the rules. Humans observe and notice the interactions, changes and operations, and make inferences, reasoning, and set up the rules and laws in conceptual manner.

Thinking that the physical objects create the physical meanings when they interact with each other creating some visible or noticeable events and changes sounds like panpsychism or superstitious totem ideas.

Please bear in mind that all meanings are mental, logical and conceptual, viz NON MATERIAL and NON PHYSICAL even if they are the product of the physical brain.

But isn't beauty in the eyes of beholder? Or is there such a thing as universally objective beauty?

Fair point. I don't agree much with ucarr either. I'm talking more about Deacon, which I give ucarr the credit for causing me (and no, that is not a matter of material causation!) to read more of. — Wayfarer

:ok:

This is very much the kind of observation that Deacon starts his book with:

The meaning of a sentence is not the squiggles used to represent letters on a piece of paper or a screen. It is not the sounds these squiggles might prompt you to utter. — Wayfarer

It is certainly an interesting writing in your quote. It sounds like a depiction of close link or cooperation between matter and ideas, rather than a standard materialism.

The reason I was put off by Deacon's argument in the synopsis was when I saw the word "evolution", which he seems to emphasis in the formation of sentience. I disagree with any evolution theories, hence stopped there.

I would give a good try reading the book based on your quote, but I have other books that I am reading, and trying to finish right now. Hence I would just wait for your finishing the book, and telling us about it. :)

I’m in your corner, but so far you have nothing to go on but sentiment. You could benefit from some more reading, starting with the book this thread is about. You may not agree with it, but considering Deacon’s arguments would be instructive. — Wayfarer

No I don't think I was going on sentiment at all. I was just letting the OP know why he was confused when he posts an addlepated questions like "

If your brain were removed from your cranium, would you be using your hands to type messages to me? — ucarr

, when I have never denied the existence of brain for the precondition of mind.

He also seems to think I was an idealist, which I am not. If someone is not materialist, then it doesn't automatically place him into a position of being an idealist.

I did read the synopsis on Deacon's arguments, but it seemed a theory I don't quite agree with. It was good to know about the arguments in outline, but I don't think I would read more about it as it doesn't interest me as a serious theory. However, as I usually do, I would try to respond to all posts directed to me from the OP and all the participants in the thread even if it is not directly related to the topic.

I’m confused? — ucarr

Your questions and posts have been mostly based on the false assumptions and misunderstandings on the other party's stance. Therefore they give impression that either the poster is confused or not reading the posts properly before replying.

Your confusion seems to be based on your misunderstanding that my stance is some sort of an idealist. I am not an idealist.

I am more in the direction of a dualist. A dualist accepts both mind and matter as different substance, like from Descartes. Hence I acknowledge matter exists as material substance, and mind exists as mental substance.

If your brain were removed from your cranium, would you be using your hands to type messages to me? — ucarr

Your "If" statement is implying that it is not a relevant condition for the point, hence your concluding question in your statement is absurd. No one has been denying that brain is the location for the mind. It is a poor logic (again :D)

Our conversation here is specifically concerned with the location, structure and functioning of mind in relation to body. If you think we’re wrong in our thesis that mind emerged from matter via upwardly evolving, dynamical processes, then you need to specifically address that claim by pointing out its flaws. — ucarr

For that info, you must contact a neurologist, and they will be able to provide the info in detail to you. I am not a neurologist, hence I do not have the detailed info off hand.

I think you should deepen your investigation beyond the level of quick scans on the internet. Doing so might empower you to more specifically address perceived flaws in the proffered explanations of the mind/body problem. — ucarr

Thank you for your advice. I will try to do that. My point was trying to clarify on materialism for its problems in the theory.

Mind is a process or activity like respiration or digestion and not a static thing. Mind-ing is what sufficiently complex brains (which are material-physical systems) do. To ask "where is mind?" is nonsensical like asking "where is breathing?" or "where is walking?" — 180 Proof

... you claimed that mind is matter.
— Corvus
I did not "claim" this. :roll:

So you can't answer my questions ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

Claiming mind is a process or activity like respiration or digestion and not a static thing sounds weird and illogical. And I never said anything about a static thing at all with mind, because my stance is mind is immaterial substance.

Those activities are the functions of the biological bodily organs. Equating them to mind seems to be a deep confusion. When I saw your post contained that statement, I didn't imagine that you would be serious to claim that. :)

Because they are, to reiterate, the basic biological functions of the bodily organs to maintain the life of the living agent. They have nothing to do with sentients, feelings, thoughts, ideas of self or cognitions which are the prime signs of having intelligence or mind. We cannot locate where the mind is situated as its own existence, because, as my claim say, it is not a matter.

We can only identify the core of our minds via those mental events and operations I have listed above, and that is all we can confirm and prove at the present. That is my belief for now.

Okay, I'll move on to someone who has some idea of what s/he is talking about. — 180 Proof

You must first know what you are asking about. :)

I know, that is what I was referencing. — Lionino

Or if we make a very unusual inference that there is such a thing as Absolute Nothingness, I think it has to be the space. Space is nothing, and it is absolutely nothing. That nothingness is what makes all the the other things exist.

So space has to exist as absolute nothingness for anything else to exist in it such as all the particles, molecules and atoms (if they did exist), and all the livings and physical objects and the planets and stars, air, sea and lights and waves. So it is a precondition of the whole universe. In reality and actuality, the universe exists, therefore Absolute Nothingness must exists too!!

I don't hold that position positively, I am just pointing out the interaction problem that arises with any dualistic philosophy.
This problem in fact arises with ANY non-physicalist philosophy, including matemathical platonism, or any kind of platonism. — Lionino

For present, I reckon the dualist theory seems to be more plausible than materialism.

Mind is a process or activity like respiration or digestion and not a static thing. Mind-ing is what sufficiently complex brains (which are material-physical systems) do. To ask "where is mind?" is nonsensical like asking "where is breathing?" or "where is walking?" — 180 Proof

Yeah, but if you could remember, that question was only possible to be thrown at you because you claimed that mind is matter. If you claimed that mind is not matter, I could not possibly have asked that awkward question. So your claim has invited the question you see?

How do you/we know this? How does the "immaterial" interact with materiality, as "mind" apparently does, without violating material-physical laws of conversation?
— 180 Proof
I'll wait ... :chin: — 180 Proof

Yeup, this can be a long topic on its own. If you can come up with a totally conclusive answers to this, then you would be nominated to the Noble prize reckon. :D

I know, that is what I was referencing. — Lionino

I thought about it again, and Nothingness must be always about something. Nothingness also implies that it has its past and past existence. But some change took place, which replaced something to nothing.

For example, I had the biscuits in the tin. When the biscuits were all eaten, there was nothing in the tin.
The thing = biscuits were replaced by the nothingness.

So nothingness exists. It has its properties too, which is emptiness and nothingness.

Now absolute nothingness is a strange concept. Absolute nothingness implies there is nothing in real absolute sense. There is no tin, no biscuits, no me, and no world. Hence it is an oxymoron, or the state of the universe before its birth. If it is Absolute Nothingness of oxymoron, then Hume would want to throw it away to the flames in his wood burning stove. But because it is absolute nothing, he might not quite be able to do that, or he doesn't need to.

If it is the state of the universe before its birth, then it is unknowable, hence it is Thing-in-Itself of Kantian terms.

Mind is immaterial substance.
— Corvus
How do you/we know this? How does the "immaterial" interact with materiality, as "mind" apparently does, without violating material-physical laws of conversation? — 180 Proof

That is what they call the "hard point", which has many explanations. If mind is matter, then where is it? What shape, size and weight is your mind?

That does not imply that mind is not matter. On the contrary, the fact that it is able to interact with matter points towards the fact that it is also of the same substance. — Lionino

Interesting point. Why do you think mind is same substance as matter?

Hume wrote in his Treaties, “If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
— Corvus

I like the fragment, but I don't see how it connects with absolute nothingness being an empty concept (something I agree with too). — Lionino

It has been a few months since that post has been written, so I was wondering about it myself, but it was for this point, I think.

In Hume's view, "Absolute Nothingness" is an empty concept, which denotes nothing. — Corvus

because there are clear evidences that it is not
— Corvus

What evidence is that? — Lionino

:cool:

Mind causes matter to change, move and work. A simple evidence? I am typing this text with my hands caused by my mind. If my mind didn't cause the hands to type, then this text would have not been typed at all.

Mind is immaterial substance. Although I know it is in me, and works for me in being conscious and perceive, think, feel, intuit and imagine etc, I cannot see it, touch it, or measure it. The mind has no physical or material existence, but it works for all the actions of humans as they please or want their bodies to perform or act according to their wills. — Corvus

Do you think mind holds causal force over material things? Is so, can you articulate the structure of the handshake linking immaterial to material? If not, can you justify your belief mind is immaterial? — ucarr

Mind causes matter to change, move and work. A simple evidence? I am typing this text with my hands caused by my mind. If my mind didn't cause the hands to type, then this text would have not been typed at all.

Mind is immaterial substance. Although I know it is in me, and works for me in being conscious and perceive, think, feel, intuit and imagine etc, I cannot see it, touch it, or measure it. The mind has no physical or material existence, but it works for all the actions of humans as they please or want their bodies to perform or act according to their wills.

If you say mind operates in domains clearly not material, such as: abstractions, generalizations of tokens to types and computation, then materialism, via absential materialism, offers an explanation how these supposed immaterial phenomena are really higher-order, emergent properties still grounded in lower-order, dynamical processes that are physical. — ucarr

Mind works with in abstract domains such as abstractions, generalisations of tokens to types and computation as well as with the body it is residing in for all the movements and works it tells the body to carry out as it wants. The clue is in the operations and communications between mind and body. Without mind, body becomes matter with no sign of life, sentience and consciousness. Without body, the mind evaporates. Where the mind goes to is still a mystery. But one thing clear is that, mind is not body itself, and mind is not material.

Can you counter this argument with one that debunks Deacon’s teleodynamics of the ententional, a category that includes: sentience, meaning and purpose. — ucarr

I am not familiar with the idea you tells, but I quickly scanned the internet search of the term. It sounds like teleodynamics of the ententional sounds like a type of evolutionary theory. I am not sure if evolutionary theory has strong grounds for its claims. It seems to have some interesting points but also many vague parts in the theory too. Anyhow, my standpoint for it is that matter alone, and evolution theory alone seem to have some problems in explaining fully on the mind / body problems.

What’re we gonna do ‘bout this barnburner?” — ucarr

Is it not time to commit the old materialism to flames? It has been around since the ancient Greek era even prior to Plato. It is has not progressed even an inch from where it was, since the time of Demorcritus.

Materialism has the easier task because it’s monist. — ucarr

It would be like saying, one legged man runs faster because he has to move only one leg instead of two when running. Nonsense.

↪Corvus Nice, I hadn't seen these before. I'll add them to my armory! — Vaskane

:cool: :ok:

Yes, this was the idea I got from reading the Anti-Christ, that he though him to be a bit of an idiot... but an idiot can be likeable I suppose. — ChatteringMonkey

A good hearted person can be name-called as an idiot in real life even these days suppose. I don't think Jesus would have minded being the person who he was.

And he may have called Nietzsche as a sage. Nietzsche might have asked Jesus, why do you called me a sage, when they say I called you an idiot. Jesus might have replied, well hmmmm well, to a sage, everyone appears to be sages, and to an idiot, everyone appears to be idiots.

And Nietzsche would have said "That proves their saying that me calling you an idiot." was a lie and groundless rumours.

If anything of the sort is ever encountered, it laments the “blindness” with sincere sympathy — Nietzsche in the Antichrist

C G Jung's seminar seems to suggest AntiChrist was a brother of Jesus who tried to undermine Jesus' values. I am not sure if it is correct fact or misreading the book on my part. This needs to be clarified and confirmed suppose. I am not familiar of the stories in the bible on Jesus, Christianity or AntiChrist at this stage, but I will be starting to read them in the near future.

"Nietzsche does not demur of Jesus, conceding that he was the only one true Christian.[28] He presents a Christ whose own inner life consisted of "wit, the blessedness of peace, of gentleness, the inability to be an enemy".[29]

Nietzsche heavily criticizes the organized institution of Christianity and its class of priests. Christ's evangelism consisted of the good news that the 'kingdom of God' is within you:[30][29] "What is the meaning of 'Glad Tidings'?—The true life, the life eternal has been found—it is not merely promised, it is here, it is in you; it is the life that lies in love free from all retreats and exclusions", whereby sin is abolished and away from "all keeping of distances" between man and God.[29]

"What the 'glad tidings' tell us is simply that there are no more contradictions; the kingdom of heaven belongs to children".[31] - WiKi on AntiChrist

Materialism has the easier task because it’s monist. It doesn’t have to address the cosmic transition point: the structural handshake transitioning immaterial into material, or the reverse. — ucarr

That doesn't prove that materialism is correct. It is a poor logic (again :roll: ). It would be like saying eating loads of McDonald hamburgers everyday and watching TV all day for the rest of your life is easy, therefore good for your health.

He is a symbol for Nietzsche, but a symbol for the psychological state of bliss ("kingdom of heaven") and a symbol for the values he opposes because they are life-denying (Jesus on the cross turning the other cheek, giving universal forgiveness to mankind)... hence the "Anti-Christ".

It is true that he thought what the church made of Jesus teaching was a gross falsification (and much worse), but that doesn't mean he condoned or even subscribed to Jesus ideas. — ChatteringMonkey

Here is a good article on Nietzsche's idea on Jesus and Anti-Christ in Wiki, and it seems to be the case that Nietzsche thought Jesus was not quite the same figure as the churches depicted him. Nietzsche seems to have liked some characters and the background of Jesus for sure.

As for Jesus, I don't see why one would get the idea that Nietzsches Zarathustra is anything like Jesus, other than he is meant to be a kind of prophet-type.

I dunno, I think all of this is pretty straightforward. — ChatteringMonkey

Couldn't Jesus be a symbolic figure for Nietzsche too? After all, Jesus was a loner, preached truths to the mass, and became a martyr, who suffered the betrayal from one of his disciples and punishment from the evil regime for the values he believed in.

I hope this cleared a few things up. I am looking to formalize my framework of actuality and hypotheticality being used here, so maybe this will be clearer in the future. — Ø implies everything

If you could define the concept "absolute" and "nothingness" separately, then it would help for getting more concrete perspectives on "absolute nothingness" i.e. as a combined idea.

After the process, the first thing we could ask or clarify is whether absolute nothingness is an entity or concept which stands on its own. If it is, then does it have any attributes or properties associated with it?

If not, then is it something that emerged from some other entities, concept or existence? .. so on.

The only similarity is that Jesus and Zarathustra were creators of values. That's the one aspect Nietzsche could respect in Jesus, that he had the strenght of his convictions, and managed to overturn conventional morality and create something new to suit his character. That's why (as I said above) he choose a prophet-type as the mouthpiece for his philosophy in Thus spoke Z, because they were doing a similar prophet thing, creating new tables of values.

Where they took that exercise however, what values they created, could not be more different. — ChatteringMonkey

The C G Jung's seminar seems saying that Zarathustra has nothing to do with the Zoroaster religious figure or Mazdaznan sector. They seem to be in favour of paralleling Zarathustra with Jesus or Nietzsche himself.

But they conclude Thus Spake Zarathustra was Nietzsche himself talking.

If materialism is a belief that even mind is matter, then it is an addlepated belief.
— Corvus

Okay, this is a start. What’s your next move? — ucarr

Materialism is a view that everything is made up of matter. If they say, even mind is made up of matter, then it is an incorrect view, because there are clear evidences that it is not.

But if they say, mind is not made of matter, then it is a pointless view. Because, of course it is not. In that case, they would be saying only matter is made up of matter, which is a tautology.

Therefore it is either an incorrect view or a tautology.

but yes, the figure of Zarathustra in Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra shares similarities with both Jesus and Nietzsche. — Vaskane

Well, that is, any Christian other than Jesus, whom he considers the only true Christian. Nietzsche speaks exceptionally high of Jesus: — Vaskane

So it was natural for Zarathustra was depicting Jesus, and tacitly Nietzsche himself too. I am glad that I am learning something about Nietzsche with this discussion. Thanks. :pray: :up:

For example, a lot of people think that the collective unconscious is something where people send telepathic messages/vibes to other people etc etc, which is just hilarious cause the collective unconscious is more like — Vaskane

The collective consciousness is an interesting concept in philosophy of psychology. It reminds me of the book by Georges Bataille called "Eroticism", but much of Jung's psychology seems to be based on the concept.

Will read the rest of your post later, as I have loads of work to clear today :( Will come back with more points when things get a bit quiet here. Good day~

The automobile is a part of the capitalist society based on the technology and free market. Without them, the society will stop functioning smoothly. There will be economic collapse and many inconveniences in daily life for the society members without the automobiles.

It has many negative aspects as the OP listed, but then is there anything which are 100% positive and problem free under the scrutiny?

A.I. is already in place of some sectors of the current life - business, medical care, military device, education, art, literature and even in philosophy. It definitely offers more efficiency and speed of the operation and transactions in whatever walk of task they are working on than the conventional way of doing the business. However, there will be many uncertainties in aspect of human life in terms of mental wellbeing, economic insecurities and falling general intelligence. Can anyone stop the current trends of the progressing technologies, and turn the time back to the ancient times? Highly unlikely.

The point is that it is not just The automobiles, which have been negatively affecting human life. All technological advances in the capitalistic society impact human life enormously some in positive, and mostly in negative ways.

I don't quite get your argument, but what you wrote in the quote is wrong. Absolute nothingness is oxymoronic because of the existence of something. Remove everything, and suddenly absolute nothingness is no longer oxymoronic, because absolute nothingness is nothing. — Ø implies everything

I totally forgot about this thread. Nice to hear back from you.

A thing is something that can be referred to, by whatever means, be they perceptual, emotive or conceptual. A conceptual reference is defining something. Therefore, the state that is absolute nothingness is a thing, by virtue of being referred to by its definition. Its definition is formalized further down.

EE is the set of all propositions true for some corresponding state; a complete description of that state. If a proposition PP is true in EE, we have that [P]∈E[P]∈E.

AA is the set corresponding to the state of absolute nothingness. The definition of AA is as follows: A=∅A=∅. That means for all propositions PP, we have that P∉AP∉A.

Contradiction:

(A=∅)∧([A=∅]∈A)(A=∅)∧([A=∅]∈A)

So, done deal? We have proved why something must exist, right? Well, look above you; what do you see? Something. Let's denote that something as CC; that is, CC denotes the proposition above.

Now, we know that CC is true, by virtue of simple logic. However, if AA truly was instantiated... Well:

C∉A — Ø implies everything

I feel your arguments seem to be still unsound. It starts from the wrong premises. When you say "absolute nothingness", you cannot even make up a proposition and assign it to an empty set. For example, I have a cookie tin here. It used to have some cookies in it. I can make a proposition A= "The tin has 3 different type of cookies." A = {C,M,T}
When all the cookies are eaten up, the tin is empty. Now A = { }

But when you say "absolute nothingness", you don't even have the tin. You don't have anything to make up a proposition. Absolute nothingness means brutely there is not even you, or the world.Hence the proposition is unthinkable. Is it possible to think about such state or a concept?

If you say, that it is possible, then it was not "absolute nothingness" you were talking about by definition, but something totally different from what I have been thinking about for "absolute nothingness". If you say, no it is not possible to even think about it, then it is a self-contradiction. Microphone over to you.