Zero and Nonexistence in Philosophical Argument

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

in recent discussion, the argument of "unreality" or "nonexistence" has been

proffered. Those who are familiar with Predicate Logic will be aware that

this argument, when applied to a general class of objects, will lead to

overgeneralization and, ultimately, to self-contradiction. Here is a simple

analogy that is hoped to make this more clear without going into the

intricacies of Predicate Calculus.

 

Suppose we want to solve the "philosophical" question as to which number,

when doubled, would yield 10. In other words, we are looking for some number

x for which the equation

 

2.x = 10

 

would hold. Of course, it is immediately obvious that there is only one such

number, 5, which satisfies the equation and thus solves our "philosophical"

question. If we wanted to, we could also apply the rules of mathematical

logic by dividing each side of the equation by 2 (or by multiplying with

1/2), and we would get the correct solution.

 

Suppose now we get the bright idea of multiplying both sides of the equation

with 0 (zero), which gives

 

0.x = 0

 

This operation is not wrong in itself, but look now at what we have done.

 

The resulting equation, though still true, has become totally useless for

finding a solution to our original problem. We have introduced spurious

solutions, in fact an infinite number of them, all claiming equal rights

with 5, because 0.x = 0 is trivially true for any number x. By applying this

multiplication with zero we have, therefore, completely robbed ourselves of

the power to solve the original problem.

 

By the same token, the introduction of the "unreality" argument into any

line of reasoning causes very similar problems to arise which now could be

traced by using predicate logic instead of mathematical logic. If all

things, or all people, are unreal (zero by analogy!), then anything goes.

Any statement we care to make about them will be trivially true then,

because we have succeeded in creating a logical tautology which is totally

useless for the purpose of finding out the truth about any statement, in the

same way that earlier 0.x = 0 had been totally useless for finding the

correct solution, 5.

 

Kindest regards,

 

Michael

[Guest guest]

Dear Michael,

 

Things neither exist nor don't exist.

You, the observer of things, neither are real nor unreal.

 

The criteria of existing and not-existing

require an observer who must be considered

as existing in order to apply criteria.

 

The observer only has existence if the

category "existing things" is believed

to have an independent reality, and if

the observer is considered to have

been placed in the category, prior to

being able to determine whether or not

things exist.

 

Because there are no grounds to establish

the category "existing things" as an

independent reality or truth, and because,

like all thought categories, it depends

on being true for an observer, we can't

say that there is an a priori truth

to "things existing" or "things not-existing."

 

The observer can't be said to be real or unreal,

as the observer determines reality and unreality

relative to the circumstances of observation.

 

I am not saying these things for the sake of making

a philosophical or logical point, I am saying

them because there is available this moment

a boundless reality, indescribable, that doesn't

depend on things existing or not-existing.

 

It is the basis for the perceptions/beliefs of existing and

not-existing, of an observer, and a universe

of things and qualities.

 

Jesus, when he spoke, spoke in parables,

and would say, "let those who have

ears, hear."

 

I take this to mean it's not something that can

be proved logically in such a way as to be believed

and then made real because of that belief.

 

It is seen/known directly as one's own being prior to

existence and non-existence.

 

Love,

Dan

 

, MikeSuesserott@t... wrote:

> Dear all,

>

> in recent discussion, the argument of "unreality" or "nonexistence"

has been

> proffered. Those who are familiar with Predicate Logic will be aware

that

> this argument, when applied to a general class of objects, will lead to

> overgeneralization and, ultimately, to self-contradiction. Here is a

simple

> analogy that is hoped to make this more clear without going into the

> intricacies of Predicate Calculus.

>

> Suppose we want to solve the "philosophical" question as to which

number,

> when doubled, would yield 10. In other words, we are looking for

some number

> x for which the equation

>

> 2.x = 10

>

> would hold. Of course, it is immediately obvious that there is only

one such

> number, 5, which satisfies the equation and thus solves our

"philosophical"

> question. If we wanted to, we could also apply the rules of mathematical

> logic by dividing each side of the equation by 2 (or by multiplying with

> 1/2), and we would get the correct solution.

>

> Suppose now we get the bright idea of multiplying both sides of the

equation

> with 0 (zero), which gives

>

> 0.x = 0

>

> This operation is not wrong in itself, but look now at what we have

done.

>

> The resulting equation, though still true, has become totally

useless for

> finding a solution to our original problem. We have introduced spurious

> solutions, in fact an infinite number of them, all claiming equal rights

> with 5, because 0.x = 0 is trivially true for any number x. By

applying this

> multiplication with zero we have, therefore, completely robbed

ourselves of

> the power to solve the original problem.

>

> By the same token, the introduction of the "unreality" argument into any

> line of reasoning causes very similar problems to arise which now

could be

> traced by using predicate logic instead of mathematical logic. If all

> things, or all people, are unreal (zero by analogy!), then anything

goes.

> Any statement we care to make about them will be trivially true then,

> because we have succeeded in creating a logical tautology which is

totally

> useless for the purpose of finding out the truth about any

statement, in the

> same way that earlier 0.x = 0 had been totally useless for finding the

> correct solution, 5.

>

> Kindest regards,

>

> Michael

[Guest guest]

Dear Mike,

 

A warm and fuzzy response;

 

Zero is a peculiar number, not really a number at all, only a space holder, a

signifier that here in this column is the

potential for an integer to be though there is none present.

 

Awareness turned upon itself finds zero where identity or 1

had been mistakenly assumed to be. The awful fact is that 1

is a black box, a functional device, a heretofore secret

encoder that makes sense of reality. Making sense is an essential function, the

1 is

not without its legitimacy, but (and it's a big

but) the 1 device turns on and off.

 

The not so trivial fact is that multiplying everything by zero

is what is going on all the time, as the present reality ever vanishes.

Multiplying everything by 1 is our human way of establishing history, society,

relationship, and all that.

 

andrew

 

 

 

 

 

 

MikeSuesserott wrote:

>

> Dear all,

>

> in recent discussion, the argument of "unreality" or "nonexistence"

has been

> proffered. Those who are familiar with Predicate Logic will be aware that

> this argument, when applied to a general class of objects, will lead to

> overgeneralization and, ultimately, to self-contradiction. Here is a simple

> analogy that is hoped to make this more clear without going into the

> intricacies of Predicate Calculus.

>

> Suppose we want to solve the "philosophical" question as to which number,

> when doubled, would yield 10. In other words, we are looking for some number

> x for which the equation

>

> 2.x = 10

>

> would hold. Of course, it is immediately obvious that there is only one such

> number, 5, which satisfies the equation and thus solves our "philosophical"

> question. If we wanted to, we could also apply the rules of mathematical

> logic by dividing each side of the equation by 2 (or by multiplying with

> 1/2), and we would get the correct solution.

>

> Suppose now we get the bright idea of multiplying both sides of the equation

> with 0 (zero), which gives

>

> 0.x = 0

>

> This operation is not wrong in itself, but look now at what we have done.

>

> The resulting equation, though still true, has become totally useless for

> finding a solution to our original problem. We have introduced spurious

> solutions, in fact an infinite number of them, all claiming equal rights

> with 5, because 0.x = 0 is trivially true for any number x. By applying this

> multiplication with zero we have, therefore, completely robbed ourselves of

> the power to solve the original problem.

>

> By the same token, the introduction of the "unreality" argument into any

> line of reasoning causes very similar problems to arise which now could be

> traced by using predicate logic instead of mathematical logic. If all

> things, or all people, are unreal (zero by analogy!), then anything goes.

> Any statement we care to make about them will be trivially true then,

> because we have succeeded in creating a logical tautology which is totally

> useless for the purpose of finding out the truth about any statement, in the

> same way that earlier 0.x = 0 had been totally useless for finding the

> correct solution, 5.

>

> Kindest regards,

>

> Michael

>

[Guest guest]

You are pretty deep and brilliant Andrew.

 

Harsha

 

 

 

 

 

 

andrew macnab [a.macnab]

Wednesday, March 27, 2002 7:05 PM

Re: Zero and Nonexistence in Philosophical

Argument

 

Dear Mike,

 

A warm and fuzzy response;

 

Zero is a peculiar number, not really a number at all, only a space holder,

a

signifier that here in this column is the

potential for an integer to be though there is none present.

 

Awareness turned upon itself finds zero where identity or 1

had been mistakenly assumed to be. The awful fact is that 1

is a black box, a functional device, a heretofore secret

encoder that makes sense of reality. Making sense is an essential function,

the 1 is

not without its legitimacy, but (and it's a big

but) the 1 device turns on and off.

 

The not so trivial fact is that multiplying everything by zero

is what is going on all the time, as the present reality ever vanishes.

Multiplying everything by 1 is our human way of establishing history,

society,

relationship, and all that.

 

andrew

[Guest guest]

I think you only say that because

you're deep and brilliant yourself,

and you're reading sympathetically.

 

andrew

 

 

Harsha wrote:

>

> You are pretty deep and brilliant Andrew.

>

> Harsha

>

[Guest guest]

The not so trivial fact is that multiplying everything by zero is

what is going on all the time, as the present reality ever vanishes.

Multiplying everything by 1 is our human way of establishing history,

society, relationship, and all that.

 

andrew

 

======================================================================

 

Things are seen as objects of perception, as solid, independent,

and "real" until sequential perception finds the zero point where

there is no identity, no sense of self, no experience. When "things"

simply are ".....", beyond perception and thought, no label is

applicable, nor is there an issue to be discussed. However, the

understanding that objects of perception are not solid and

independent, also allows them to be "seen" as "unreal".

 

The issue and the discussion of "real" vs. "unreal arises when they

appear to be opposites. Then the paradox or contradiction arises and

it gets discussed over and over without resolution. So it can be

said that things are neither real or unreal. This seems to be the

same as saying that things are only "apparently real".

 

But saying that things are "apparently real" can end the

contradiction or paradox, and the issue of real vs. unreal. Now it

can be said that something apparently exists from nothing. The

instantaneous polarity between zero and one, between "no-thingness"

and the perception of things, enables the constant flow of human

events in the void.

 

Ed

[Guest guest]

Thanks Ed,

 

Another statement that is the reconciliation of the paradox is:

 

Real and Unreal are qualities of "_________".

 

From the perspective of what is called 'Spirit' there is that

which is True and (exclusively) from there the other is Unreal.

 

From the perspective of what is called 'Human' there is that

which is True and (exclusively) from there the other is Unreal.

 

"_________" sees both 'Spirit' and 'Human' and the paradox

dissolves.

 

'Spiritual' and 'Human' are qualities of "_________".

Spirit and Human are the polarity like the positive and negative

qualities of electricity. And like electricity there is a current -

just as in Life, there is a flow - some aspects are 'Spiritual', some

aspects are 'Human'.

 

The underlying reality "_________" is Love and its flow is the

'Current of Love'.

 

Love,

James

 

 

 

 

 

, "stillpointed" <eea@a...> wrote:

> The not so trivial fact is that multiplying everything by zero is

> what is going on all the time, as the present reality ever vanishes.

> Multiplying everything by 1 is our human way of establishing

history,

> society, relationship, and all that.

>

> andrew

>

>

======================================================================

>

> Things are seen as objects of perception, as solid, independent,

> and "real" until sequential perception finds the zero point where

> there is no identity, no sense of self, no experience. When

"things"

> simply are ".....", beyond perception and thought, no label is

> applicable, nor is there an issue to be discussed. However, the

> understanding that objects of perception are not solid and

> independent, also allows them to be "seen" as "unreal".

>

> The issue and the discussion of "real" vs. "unreal arises when they

> appear to be opposites. Then the paradox or contradiction arises

and

> it gets discussed over and over without resolution. So it can be

> said that things are neither real or unreal. This seems to be the

> same as saying that things are only "apparently real".

>

> But saying that things are "apparently real" can end the

> contradiction or paradox, and the issue of real vs. unreal. Now it

> can be said that something apparently exists from nothing. The

> instantaneous polarity between zero and one, between "no-thingness"

> and the perception of things, enables the constant flow of human

> events in the void.

>

> Ed

[Guest guest]

OK. In that case, you are humble, modest, charming, and can jump very high

(I saw you doing the Tai Chi Sky Leap at the retreat).

 

Harsha

 

 

andrew macnab [a.macnab]

Wednesday, March 27, 2002 8:55 PM

Re: Zero and Nonexistence in Philosophical

Argument

 

I think you only say that because

you're deep and brilliant yourself,

and you're reading sympathetically.

 

andrew

 

 

Harsha wrote:

>

> You are pretty deep and brilliant Andrew.

>

> Harsha

>

 

 

/join

 

 

 

 

All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside

back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than

the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness.

Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is

where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal

Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously

arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a.

 

 

 

Your use of is subject to

[Guest guest]

, "nisarga111" <nisarga@c...> wrote:

>

> Thanks Ed,

 

And thanks to you, James. It seems the issue of real vs. unreal is

not a conflict of opposites but a matter of different

modes of "knowing": perceptual knowing -based on sensory evidence,

conditioning, and interpretation (real) , intellectual knowing -based

on understanding and logic (neither real or unreal), and

direct "knowing" -based on "-----" (nada).

 

Ed

 

 

 

 

 

>

> Another statement that is the reconciliation of the paradox

is:

>

> Real and Unreal are qualities of "_________".

>

> From the perspective of what is called 'Spirit' there is that

> which is True and (exclusively) from there the other is Unreal.

>

> From the perspective of what is called 'Human' there is that

> which is True and (exclusively) from there the other is Unreal.

>

> "_________" sees both 'Spirit' and 'Human' and the paradox

> dissolves.

>

> 'Spiritual' and 'Human' are qualities of "_________".

> Spirit and Human are the polarity like the positive and

negative

> qualities of electricity. And like electricity there is a current -

> just as in Life, there is a flow - some aspects are 'Spiritual',

some

> aspects are 'Human'.

>

> The underlying reality "_________" is Love and its flow is

the

> 'Current of Love'.

>

> Love,

> James

>

>

>

>

>

> , "stillpointed" <eea@a...> wrote:

> > The not so trivial fact is that multiplying everything by zero is

> > what is going on all the time, as the present reality ever

vanishes.

>

> > Multiplying everything by 1 is our human way of establishing

> history,

> > society, relationship, and all that.

> >

> > andrew

> >

> >

>

======================================================================

> >

> > Things are seen as objects of perception, as solid, independent,

> > and "real" until sequential perception finds the zero point where

> > there is no identity, no sense of self, no experience. When

> "things"

> > simply are ".....", beyond perception and thought, no label is

> > applicable, nor is there an issue to be discussed. However, the

> > understanding that objects of perception are not solid and

> > independent, also allows them to be "seen" as "unreal".

> >

> > The issue and the discussion of "real" vs. "unreal arises when

they

> > appear to be opposites. Then the paradox or contradiction arises

> and

> > it gets discussed over and over without resolution. So it can be

> > said that things are neither real or unreal. This seems to be

the

> > same as saying that things are only "apparently real".

> >

> > But saying that things are "apparently real" can end the

> > contradiction or paradox, and the issue of real vs. unreal. Now

it

> > can be said that something apparently exists from nothing. The

> > instantaneous polarity between zero and one, between "no-

thingness"

> > and the perception of things, enables the constant flow of human

> > events in the void.

> >

> > Ed