These insights are on my mind. If anyone is generous enough to address them specifically. It’s started with the idea of mathematically representing nothingness because negation could possibility be the - and the Everything or ALL something(s) being the +.
In other words, the - would be infinite negation not just as much as we can negate humanly but as much that can be negated in nothing itself.
Be cautious Coca-Cola, the biggest fallacy of math is believing you can truly negate something into nothing. The truth is that things are never actually destroyed by negation; this is an illusion. Once a thing exists as something, it can never be undone; it cannot become nothing again until it ‘truly dies’.
How can something be utterly destroyed when the laws of physics states that energy is never destroyed?
I wonder if infinite negation (infinite -) is the equivalent of infinite nothingness. And negation does cancel - infinite negation would infinitely cancel to the point of infinite nothingness
Death is a negation. The negation of something. Infinite negation is infinite negation of something and by nature nothingness is nothing
Sorry to say, cola, but i think you are just futzing with words. Death may be described as a ‘negation,’ though it is more accurately a cessation. It’s not as if the transition from living body to corpse has said corpse dissolving into rays of light; the mass of the body still exists. “Infinite negation” sounds suspiciously like plain old ‘nothing,’ and the problem with ‘nothing’ is that i keep stubbing my toes on ‘something…’
haha jac. yeah, it does sound like ‘nothing’. I didn’t list the problems with this thought. The most obvious is the whole ‘what is in relation and how can nothing relate’ … the thought stems from Absolute value and mathematical relations… funny how nothing cannot relate and how the whole thought crumbles so easily. 